Yes. My bad.
Did they have crime? Were sins and crimes the same thing?ghost said:
Seems pretty straight forward. Try again.ghost said:
I have no idea what your point is.
No answer from Lighthouse. That's what I thought. And yet, my question made just as much sense as the OP's.
We don't have sins to contend with anymore. But the government has to punish crimes. In Israel it was both a sin and a crime to work on Sabbath. Under the New Covenant, it is not a sin to work on Sabbath, but is it still a crime?
How do you figure that?
I have no idea what you are asking. What Sabbath?
And you call me a blithering idiot. You seem to be a smart man, quite being obtuse and deal with the question: what is a sin and what is a crime and how do we know.
It is obvious if you think about it. Selfish people ruin everything and need to be removed. We all have free will. So we should fear God.
Then we couldn't justly be punished. And wouldn't need an atonement.
The bible says to love God with all of your mind, not more than all of it. If someone can't figure out how to obey God then they are not transgressing His law. "with all of your strength" not more than all of it. If it is a matter of ability then only the ability we have is required (justice).
Then He wouldn't punish us for our inability. And He wouldn't require the suffering and death of Jesus in order to accept us. He would just care and admit we couldn't help it. If your child gets a math problem wrong you don't need to kill anyone. They couldn't help it.
You said, "in a state of unrighteousness and all unrighteousness is sin". Is the state we are born in a sin? If so, then it is a "sin" we are not the cause of. Are we the cause of the state we are born in? No one can be morally guilty for something they are not the cause of.
I used to think Jesus must have had to die because of human inability. Now I know Jesus died because of the misuse of human ability. For His enemies not invalids. Criminals not cripples. Rebels not victims.
I can say the same things, "you just are too proud to admit that your version of justice is contrary to God's"
I don't disagree with the Gospel. I disagree with your version of it.
I agree with that verse.
Huh? Why? It's not unconditional. Why would it be unwise?
I used to reject Jesus and be a blasphemer. I don't now. But you think I still do. You don't think I could disagree with you in good conscience. Because you are convinced that you correctly understand the bible.
Of course. But why does that matter?
Free will is incompatible with a concrete "they won't".
The mouth and larynx are made out of flesh. What do you really mean?
It would not be good to have selfish people in heaven. Selfish people ruin everything. Therefore God did not send His son to make it possible to have selfish (wicked) people in heaven.
Not every sin was punishable by law, for one. And some of them were either rescinded or never intended for anyone other than Israel, which is shown by Scripture. But that's actually irrelevant as ghost has shown in his quote below.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought if you think he disagrees with me.
Exactly.
Was Christ's sacrifice enough to justify immunity?
The propitiation of Christ's sacrifice was necessary because we are incapable of being 100% obedient, or righteous. It is only through His righteousness that we can be clean. He obeyed for us.
You're an idiot.
This is not about morality you moron.
Is God strong enough to force someone's free choice? There is no such thing as justifying immunity. Selfish people are an intrinsic disaster. They have to be burned.
What don't you understand?
If we can't justly be punished then we need no atonement. God would not need a sacrifice to accept us if it was just an inability issue. You don't need a sacrifice for people in wheelchairs. There is only a legal/sacrificial problem for the misuse of ability - not for a lack of ability.
Of course we're not born righteous. We're born innocent. If we were born with a problem then Jesus would not have had to suffer and die for it.
If sin is inevitable then we deserve immunity. But if we have free will then immunity is unjustifiable. People with free will can choose to be evil. Evil people ruin everything. Granting them immunity would be immoral.
What? You think there is a difference between sinning and disobeying God?
Why would failing to require honesty as a condition of pardon be unjust?
This made me think of lie detectors. But I think you basically agree that believers are capable of being selfish? Because you believe in free will?
There is a difference between selfish coveting and natural temptations or desires. Not everyone is selfish.
Idiot.
Did I say I didn't understand, ignoramus?
Who is punished? The propitiation is not in response to punishment.:nono:
You have no idea what the truth is.
Immunity is only applied to those who repent toward Christ. It is not for evil people.
No, you moron.
I meant if we did not actually deserve punishment, then we would not need any atonement. If we could not avoid punishment, because of an inability or because of a state we are born in, or anything that is not our choice, then our punishment would not be just. We would not deserve punishment. Then we would not need an atonement. We only need an atonement if we deserve punishment. Not if we were born that way. Not if we couldn't avoid the whole situation.
Selfish people are the only people who are evil. (If you don't like this use of the word evil then I can just stick with the word selfish.) People who repent still have free will. They are capable of being selfish.
God's law requires 100% percent of our ability. So by definition we are able to be 100% obedient.
You don't know what immunity for the believer means. You falsely assume people will take advantage of it. It never occurred to you that those who would seek to do so are not the ones who have received immunity. Immunity goes to those who are a new creation in Christ, they are filled with His love, and 1 Corinthians explains perfectly what the result of that is.
No I didn't. I only said it is possible because we all have free will. I can't say it definitely would happen for the same reason you can't say it definitely wouldn't happen: free will.
That's not the premise of my argument. The argument was that we all have free will. Not just unbelievers. Christians have free will therefore Christians are able to turn back to selfishness. You can only say a concrete "they would not / will not" if you deny their free will.
God's law requires 100% percent of our ability. So by definition we are able to be 100% obedient. A law that required more than we are able to do would be a bad law. Pharaoh made a law for the Hebrew people that was too hard for them to keep. God didn't congratulate Pharaoh. He killed Pharaoh. Wicked rulers make impossible laws - not God. Impossible laws are unjust because threatening punishment for inability is unjust.
If we were incapable then we would not need an atonement. We would only need to appeal to our inability in order to be accepted. The devil wants you to think you were unable because he knows it erodes personal accountability.
We are unable to be 100% obedient which is why Christ died.
God's law requires 100% of our ability not 101%. Only 101% or greater would be more than we are able to do. We are able to obey God's law by definition because it requires 100% of our ability. "All of your strength" not "more than all" like you are saying.