Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: A pridefull man's reaction to a Holy God. Message-ID: <1564@qubix.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 00:05:56 EST Article-I.D.: qubix.1564 Posted: Fri Nov 30 00:05:56 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 03:36:40 EST References: <516@watdcsu.UUCP>, <246@qantel.UUCP> <543@watdcsu.UUCP>, <263@qantel.UUCP> <1071@trwrba.UUCP>, <1142@trwrba.UUCP> Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix Lines: 48 > > [me] > > Where there is sin, there must be payment for sin. > [John Nelson] > WHY must there be payment for sin? This sounds like a form of revenge > to me. "Paying" for sins doesn't sound terribly constructive.... > especially coming from an infinite God whose wisdom supposedly > transcends all. Similarly the existance of an ever-burning hellfire > seems to accomplish less than an all-wise deity should be capable of. John, your obtuseness is beyond belief. It's basic justice: recompense for an offense. You do the crime - you do the time. And the recompense is appropriate to the crime, as I noted in my previous article. > The concept of payment for sins is NOT a new one. Many ancient > cultures had it. This leads me to conclude that the concept of > "payment" for sins might very well have originated in man and not God. ...or that the other ancient cultures descended from a theistic one. > > The "killing of an innocent" is far from "senseless." Only > > someone who had no sins of his own to pay for could pay for my > > sins... > Of course that assumes that... > 1) Payment of some sort IS required. > 2) Death is a suitable payment. > 3) The death of an innocent is better than the death of > he who is truly guilty. > These are all necessary to the Christian theology and yet I don't think > there is adequate justification for them. As I had said to Ken Nichols > before... this harkens back to the Old Testiment thinking that said one > could remove sin from one's self by shedding the blood of another. Not quite correct. More accurately, the One offended chose to accept a substitute in place of the offender. In order to serve as a substitute, the substitute must have no offense of its own. It is not man trying to appease God. It is God saying what kind of payment He will accept. > Your rationalizations have yet to hit the mark. If you can't > rationalize, then I don't try. If you can't understand justice, my trying is futile. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.