WHY was Jesus cricified?

[orangebox21]

Where to begin?

I'd start by answering any one of my questions.
(Although to be fair you hinted at the last one in the final portion of your response).

First of all I'm not sure why all crimes and misdemeanors would be a debt to god. There is an analogy in that in most countries all crimes are considered to be crimes against the state in that the state has an interest in maintaining the peace. But god appears to have taken an entirely hands off approach to peace keeping.

It's God's laws that are being broken and so the legal debt would be to Him. Much in the same way transgressions against the 'laws of the state' become a debt to 'the state'.

Assuming however that god is akin to the state for these purposes, the punishment of eternal suffering doesn't fit any crime any human could possibly commit. Eternal is a long, long time.

"This ignores the important principle that crime depends on the object against whom it is committed (in this case an infinite God) as well as on the subject who commits it (finite man). All sin is ultimately against an infinite God and therefore deserves infinite punishment." (Paraphrased from Charles C. Ryrie)

But that's mere quibble compared the idea that god would have to pay a debt owed to himself in order to excuse his debtors. That's simply nuts.-----You owe me twenty, but I'd like to forgive you so the only thing to do is burn one of my twenties, otherwise I can't let you off the hook. WTF?

The trinity is a difficult concept to grasp. Have you ever read "Flatland"? There may be some analogous insight there.

[Jenny A]

First of all I'm not sure why all crimes and misdemeanors would be a debt to god. There is an analogy in that in most countries all crimes are considered to be crimes against the state in that the state has an interest in maintaining the peace. But god appears to have taken an entirely hands off approach to peace keeping.

It's God's laws that are being broken and so the legal debt would be to Him. Much in the same way transgressions against the 'laws of the state' become a debt to 'the state'.

Yes, I gave you the state analogy, but god doesn't equate to the state for several reasons. First, the state is a collective of those likely hurt by crime, i.e. people. Second, because unlike the state god takes a hand's off, i.e. free will approach. Third, unlike the state god had no authority to speak for humans.

Assuming however that god is akin to the state for these purposes, the punishment of eternal suffering doesn't fit any crime any human could possibly commit. Eternal is a long, long time.

"This ignores the important principle that crime depends on the object against whom it is committed (in this case an infinite God) as well as on the subject who commits it (finite man). All sin is ultimately against an infinite God and therefore deserves infinite punishment." (Paraphrased from Charles C. Ryrie)

Really? You mean because god is infinite he is infinite in his capacity to be hurt? Possible. But infinitely hurt by any wrong? That's just silly.

But that's mere quibble compared the idea that god would have to pay a debt owed to himself in order to excuse his debtors. That's simply nuts.-----You owe me twenty, but I'd like to forgive you so the only thing to do is burn one of my twenties, otherwise I can't let you off the hook. WTF?

The trinity is a difficult concept to grasp. Have you ever read "Flatland"? There may be some analogous insight there.

Um? What does the trinity have to do with it (no I haven't read Flatland--who wrote it?). Please explain step by step. We atheists is apparently ignorant.

[RobbyPants]

A human analogy might be: if you crashed my car rather than requiring you to pay the cost of fixing (which would be a just thing to do) I show you mercy and bear the cost myself. In one way I am just simply forgiving you for crashing my car - but in order to do that I'm paying the consequences your action deserved.

You're always going to run into problems with analogies when you try to explain God's actions using humans.

In that situation, God could magic his car better and would not need to spend any money to fix it or require any money from you. And that's what I'm saying in the OP: either God can fix this problem, or he's somehow beholden to it. The answer I keep getting from the apologists is "God won't just magically fix his car because it's not in his nature, cuz reasons."

[Sejanus]

God cannot deny His nature.

Doesn't that mean he's not omnipotent? lololololol

[John V]

[RobbyPants]

Unnecessary according to your sense of justice. Necessary according to God's.

Wait. I thought you earlier said that my opinion on justice was different than God's opinion on justice. Is it an opinion or something that's necessary?

[John V]

Wait. I thought you earlier said that my opinion on justice was different than God's opinion on justice. Is it an opinion or something that's necessary?

It's both obviously.

[orangebox21]

[Sejanus]

Doesn't that mean he's not omnipotent? lololololol

If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything imaginable, then yes you would be correct to say that God is not omnipotent.

Explicitly the Bible says God cannot sin, He tempts no man, He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself.

Implicitly I would propose God can't cause Himself to not exist or create a rock too heavy for Him to carry.

Doesn't sound like much of a god to me. I'll stick with Odin, who is actually omnipotent.

[Minimalist]

Valhalla beats the fuck out of "heaven" too.

Serving wenches and mead. Yeah!