Didymus wrote:
I don't remember putting it quite that way, Upsilon.
Indeed, I phrased it differently to you. That doesn't alter the fact that what I said had already been implied by you. Whatever euphemisms you may use, what you said was that God doesn't like infidels.
Quote:
I was just suggesting perhaps another way to try to understand why God's mercy does not seem to extend to everyone. Another look at that whole "Many are called, but few are chosen" aspect. Many are called, meaning that God's mercy does extend to everyone, but few are chosen, meaning that his mercy only actually effects some, not all. Why is that? I'm not sure.
Well, you seemed fairly sure when you said that the reason was that God doesn't love all equally.
Stu wrote:
I don't believe that God can save everyone.
Forgive my glaring ignorance, but, as a Mormon, do you believe in the god the Bible describes, or one with different properties? Because I have a biblical source:
Matthew wrote:
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)
Enough said.
Quote:
Because God is just, he can't and won't tolerate sin at all.
But you and I sin frequently. The fact that you believe in Jesus doesn't change that, and apologising for it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. How do you, as a Christian, stand on firmer ground than I, an atheist?
Quote:
That is the reason for Jesus' crucifixion (and more importantly, atonement). So in a sense, because everyone sins (and by doing so guarantee a spot in Hell) Jesus needed to be.
I appreciate that is the given reason, but I can't make sense of it. God did not need to manifest himself and put himself through all that pain to spare us from our sins - as Jesus himself pointed out, nothing is impossible to God. If God wants us to be saved from Hell, he could save us without the somewhat poetic addition of "bearing all of mankind's sins". So why did he do it? Maybe God's a masochist.
Quote:
Again, according to what I believe this was an option. Of the two plans proposed during the pre-existence, this was the one that got rejected. Lucifer (Satan) proposed that we live here with no choice between good and evil (so everyone would be saved). More important then that was who the glory would go to... him.
I see that factor as quite a bit less "important" than whether I go to Heaven or Hell.
Quote:
Jesus proposed that we would be sent to earth with the choice of good and evil, and the glory would be given to the Father. But by giving us choice, we would sin. Due to that we would need someone to save us (because God is just), that is where the atonement and crucifixion came into play.
That still doesn't explain why God found it necessary to... yeah, I've already said this.
racerx wrote:
God is a just god, and he is also an unchangeable god. God is omnipotent, but if he were to use that power to erase all the consequences of all of our actions, he wouldn't be just anymore. If he weren't just anymore, then he would be a changeable god, and how can we have faith in a changeable god? The atonement of Jesus Christ provides us a way to escape the penalty of our sins, but that is only because his suffering paid that penalty as long as we give our sins up to him. Jesus paid the demands of justice, so that mercy could be extended to us.
Yeah... I think that yet again I've made the wrong impression. I understand that we need to be saved from our sins to enter Heaven - I assume that as a given. I just don't see why the method of our forgiveness has to involve Jesus being crucified. God can presumably do it without that added hassle.