Why did God forgive our sins?

God the father sent God the son. I'd agree the Trinity warrants a couple of ?-marks- One purpose was to save men who would believe from the consequences of his sin. This involved the son taking possession (as it were) of those mens sin. Being cleansed of sin is thus a by-product of his action. A by-product which renders those men (and women) fit to see God - as it happens.It's something that God did because he loves man. God-sized love note - not the sentimental kind of love which undergirds the argument of your average OT-basher- It makes sense to me. I don't see how his knowing I would sin again has to do with his deciding to cleanse me from my sin. Cleanse me from my sin means cleanse me from my sin. There are no time units involved in your point.- What about all the people who don't want to be around God. Are you supposing God should force them to be around him?That doesn't strike me as fair.- He will have all his children with him in heaven (eternally speaking he already has). And all who don't want to be his children won't be and won't be with him in heaven.Note that men aren't born into this world as children of God. To become a child of God requires that you be born again and adopted as a child of God.First time round everyone's father (yours, mine...everybody's) is actually satan. He's the one under whose roof you reside currently - assuming your not a child of God.

I would agree - were it that these mangled notions of yours (even vaguely) represented basic Christian doctrine.- 1) Sin, the irresistable force that God can't do anything about.Of course he can do something about it. He can restrain evil, unleash evil, punish evil and finally, destroy the ability of anyone to do evil forevermore. All according to the plan he has going - one part of which involves tolerating sins activity for a time.If that's not comprehensive sin-management then I don't know what is.2) Blind eyesHe won't turn a blind eye to my sin due to my believing in Christ as the one who God will turn to in order to exact punishment for my sin - instead of turning to me. What he'll do is turn to Christ (as one found in possession of my sin) in order to exact punishment for my sin - instead of turning to me.I'm sure you have a grasp of these most fundamental of Christian doctrines (doctrine of Gods forebearance, doctrine of atonement), the abject ignorance shown in your comments being completely feigned.- You seem to have also forgotten the basics of salvation by faith alone.Man doesn't bargain with God for anything and contributes nothing to his salvation. Certainly not by offering up his allegience. The closest your argument might approach the way it actually is, is in it's parodying the transaction that occurs on the point of a mans salvation. That point does involve man surrendering himself to God - but seeing as it is God who presses that surrender out of man and convinces a man to his knees, I'm not sure what pickings remain left on the skeleton of your complaint.- Take possession of it in a legal sense. You don't have to like drugs in order to take possession of a friends stash when the cops come banging on the door.Do you?

Because I don't mix time and eternity up like you do perhaps?So long as:a) it's a persons own will that insists upon that destinationb) no ones will is anymore disposed towards their destination than anyone elses will...then I cannot see why you would have a problem.

The Romans passage doesn't say that.I would agree however that a child can't consciously sin before some or other age of reason. But that doesn't mean it's nature is anything other than that of a sinner (spiritually dead to God). That a new born kitten isn't capable of catching mice doesn't mean to say that it's nature is anything other than cat-like. Similarily, that a child eventually sins arises as a result of it possessing a sinful nature.Certainly David shares that opinion

quote:

---

Psalm 51 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

---

The Ezekiel verse tells us that a child won't be judged guilty for the sins of his father. Guilt for sin committed and spiritually dead to God are two different things. The two are related - in that the one (sinful acts) is the the product of the other (a sinful nature). But they are different things.- Romans 3:23 doesn't say that all men will sin. It says that all (which doesn't exclude children) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.- With conscious acts of sin or without conscious acts of sin - the parentage remains the same. And parentage determines ones nature.

Let's see.- True. And we can see that a persons will enters the fray immediately. God knows who wills and who wills not..even before the beginning of creation.We might agree that one way for God to know who will fulfill the salvation criterion (from 'before' the beginning) is to be simultaneously present 'after' the end of time to observe all who fulfilled it.Before-knowledge by After-observation as it were.- God creates people in the knowledge that all will end up at an eternal destination dictated by their own hearts desire. Whilst not of the opinion that we are born with free will, the free will defence works so long as Gods knowing is non-determining (as exampled above) Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That view is a close relative of a Christian theological standpoint called (hyper)-Calvinism.I don't share their view. If such a God did exist then you'd have to say what you just said. As would I. Not much a discussion to be had there huh? Let me guess. Your last read was The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins?

This ignores my point. Play your demands out ...If God knows the 'before' by virtue of being present 'after' then not creating those who would perish would mean there is no 'after' to know the 'before' about. And no reason not to create them.Granted, the problem with your objection arises because you try to apply time-based moral concepts to eternity. It doesn't alter the fact of your objection going into a downwardly spiraling tailspin. Again you have ignored my suggestion as to how God knows 'the future'. People would only be destined to Hell by a determining God. One who sets our programme in motion - knowing what would transpire - due to him having programmed it to occur.This is not the scenario as I suggest, one in which God knows 'the future' by virtue of his simultaneous presence in the future - now. His knowing what my choices 'will' be arises out of the fact that I have already made those choices.The film of the history of time from T=0 to T=end-of-time being already in the can. No so, the simplest answer is that it was the furious-wrath-against-sin-God who I worship. He's no more one-dimensional that you or I are.But you know that already. Murder is otherwise described as unrighteous killing. Q: How God could unrighteously kill anyone? Answers on a postage stamp to this address ...

God, in creating beings with own freewill created the potential for beings to operate outside the boundaries he set for them. He did this deliberately and necessarily - it not being possible to create freewilled being without such potential. That is not to say he created sin however. He simply created the potential for sin - which is the same as saying Yamaha create the potential for drunk driving.Sin, for the purposes of discussion can be defined as actions/thoughts which occur outside the boundaries set by God.- I don't see how giving people (Adam and Eve) freewill means there was a foregone conclusion. The two terms are contradictory. Freewill can go either way.- Taking the last point first and moving backwards. Forgiveness means that the offended pays the price on behalf of the offender. God is the offended party, to forgive he must pay the price on behalf of the offender.God punishes someone for their own sin. That he knew they were going to do it doesn't make it any less theirs (assuming that the mechanism of his pre-knowing doesn't mean their sin-doing was determined to happen; see post to Brian above for such a mechanism)Your two points on Gods justice and a punishing himself/ a proxy? See point on what constitutes actual forgiveness. The offended pays the price.- When your talking God of the Bible your talking eternity. Which eliminates the focus on a time element of sin and the sequence of it's being dealt with finally. Note that OT atonement didn't deal with sin finally, it merely covered sin from God's view and maintained Gods chosen people in fit state to be a people through whom the Messiah would come. OT atonement involved a temporary dealing with of sin - so shouldn't be referred to as method of full and final accounting.For example: Christ is described as slain before the foundation of the world - even if the actual event occurred in eternity-enclosed time. Christians here on earth are described as already seated in the heavenly realm. God occupying all points in time simultaneously can know the beginning from the end because all points in time have occurred already - even points which we refer to as the future.The 'twisted' version is actually the full version which was pictured in part in the OT. The clean bleating lamb provided by God as a means of covering sin becomes the spotless lamb of God provided by God as a means of complete eradication of sin.As to what given up and why? God the father and God the son give up perfect, harmonious relationship as the price to be paid for our sin. Forgiveness, like I say, involves the offended paying for the offence themselves. God set that price and if that's what he reckoned would do it then there is little point in arguing about it.Better to take him up on his offer whilst it's going.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

He wouldn't have to be. I'm suggesting that as one way to know the 'before'. There are other ways. A determining God is another way, for instance. Knowing all because you are in control of all possible angles. The God-of-puppets kind of God.If this is the model you're working off then I can't see cause for complaint. You are a puppet as am I. We are saying and doing what the strings determine we must do. Your digust and horror aren't yours. They're just him pulling your strings.You might have another model going as to how God knows all. You never actually said what it was. Before moving on to the rest of your post, perhaps you could share the "method by which God knows all" you're basing your condemnation on. If neither of the above mentioned.This.. ... will not do. Punch and Judy don't get to "complain"

Don't thank me, thank satan. He's such an abominable fucker you can't but attempt to thwart him.- How are you to learn to turn the other cheek unless you get into positions where you get slapped around? It wasn't the evolutionist folk who condemned you, it was the unbelieving folk - who happen to believe in evolution who condemned you. There are believers who are evolutionists. I'm not one of them - and I'm not sure how they square the circle. But it's not the critical thing. In Christ or no. That's all that matters.- If you can't beat 'em with an out and out lie then it's worth trying a lie that's closest to the truth. Satan doesn't give a cobblers which it is. So long as it works. Truth be known, it's hard to live by faith alone - who doesn't get around to trying to "earn" God's favor huh? "If I manage to keep away from x,y,z then maybe God'll be pleased". I'm sure you've trodden that path..- I've no problem using a bit of within-the-rules insult and condemnation. It stimulates response. It's the gospel that saves, how you deliver it isn't the main concern.The "guys here" are lost, are enemies of God, are God hating, are controlled by satan. Just as I once was. It's no surprise that you get the response you do. That said, there's no point in playing fish in a barrel (claiming science supports the YEC view is not advised - merely because science patently doesn't - at least not according to any standard of doing science that I ever heard of) (at risk of rubbing unbelieving scales the wrong way) Hallelujah!

Your accusation demands application of some model or other. The one I offered might not be to your liking. But it does get God off your hook. At least until you manage to figure a way out of your tailspin.It really isn't good enough to cry "just because" like a child walking home with the ball.

Er..if God knows who will end up in Hell by virtue of observing their choosing to go there - then I can't see how his creating them so that they can choose either way can be seen as barbaric.IF that's how he creates them - effectively able to choose either way - AND his knowing by observation doesn't alter their destination being their own (effective) free choice THEN I can't for the life of me see your gripe.

Those who will go to Hell are those who can be technically described as being in Adam. That is, dying in the same state they were born in, born into Adam. Those who won't go to Hell are those who are in Christ. They'll have been born again at some point during their lives.I see no reason why a person must have heard of Christ in order that they be saved - the criterion for being saved would appear to be only that a person believe God. Furthermore, I see no requirement that a person believe in God in order to believe what God is attempting to convince them of.I expect there will be many very surprised people entering heaven.- Given the above comments? Yes, of course. Everyman is exposed to the glory of Gods creation. Everyone has a conscience. These are more than sufficient to lever a man into salvation.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The boundaries were indeed set by God. He is sovereign and I see no reason why he doesn't justifiably get to set them (as if he needed our permission).Freewill does come into it because it is freewill that enabled Adam and Eve to decide on whether they would operate inside or outside those boundariesI'm not sure what you mean by sin just being a concept. If so the concept it that sin is operating outside Gods boundaries.You are incorrect about God not needing to be offended. If you love what is good you must hate what is evil. If you love kids you must hate the actions of a paedophile. It's not like that at all. Man knowing good from evil results in the world we have today. That is not the same as your child using yellow. God didn't want the world to be the way it is today and put a prohibition up against it.- Not if your knowing what is 'going' to happen arises out of your being simultaneously present at the event of it's happening. Present at the event of a person actually choosing. That observation gets fed back to before the event so that you know what's going to happen because it has happened.Put it another way, if all events are now to God (our past, our present and our future) the before occurs at the same moment as the after and your point flounders.- Sure. But a forgiven money debt doesn't disappear like magic. What happens is that I (the creditor) do without that which I could have purchased with the money owed me. That 'doing without' is a sufferance on my part. Alternatively, if I want what that money could have bought then I pay for it from my own funds. And suffer in that regard.Either way, forgiveness isn't issued for free. The forgiver sacrifices in one way or other.- In order to forgive God must pay. Man, if deciding to retain possession of their debt to God, gets to pay for it in Hell. That is the price demanded of man. The transgression occurs in eternity (or in a subset of eternity) therefore the paying of debt occurs eternally.- There is little point in talking time units as the rupture in relationship occurred in eternity. What that means precisely I don't know. Whatever the nature of that rupture it was deemed sufficient by God.- One way to answer this is to utilise the biblical picture of the state of affairs between man in his fallen state ... and God. The picture given is one of war. Man, who inhabits Gods sovereign territory refuses to recognise Gods rights over him and is in a state of rebellion wrt God.The issue of forgiveness is secondary to the issue of God defeating rebellion. God will bring all people to their knees in the end - every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. He will convince all that they are sinners and wrong and evil - some on this side of death, some on the other side of death.To those who would surrender during a time of dispensation of mercy he will treat mercifully. To those who surrender by virtue of their ability to fight on being destroyed he will treat mercilessly.So, it's incorrect to say that you have to put your soul up as collateral for forgiveness. You're going to hand your soul over to God whatever the case - for the rebellion will be certainly crushed.He will reign over you whether you're in Heaven or Hell.

No. The conclusion you draw from God knowing everything doesn't apply to at least one potential mechanism whereby God knows everything. There might well be other mechanisms which equally invalidate your conclusions. Heck, your conclusions don't even apply to a determining God - because there would be no 'you' to evaluate such things. 'You' would be saying what it is determined you say - irreseptive of whether it is accurate or no.Without a mechanism whereby God knows everything you're simply flying blind Brian.