Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?
So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

1. Its an "iron law" that sin must bring suffering.
That may be true (or not) but it evades the question of why God
couldnt have altered, abolished, or softened the rule.

2. As God of righteousness, He had no moral choice but to be angry at
sin.
That sounda a "little" better until we realize that its an argument
for why God could not have forgiven mankind in the first place. But
since God granted His grace (according to Christians) on an totally
underserving humanity, the arguement about the rightness of anger sort
of falls apart. Despite His anger, despite the rightness of eternal
punishment for mankind, bingo! Devine grace allows us to be off the
hook. Now there's the small matter of how we get there, which is my
original question.....Given that God wanted to grant His grace, why
all the sturm und drang?

It may raise an ethical question, but its not incoherent or
mysterious. Why God allows his only begotten son to be tortured to
death seems way more mysterious and puzzling to me.

The death of Jesus does not make humans sinless or do anything about
what humans are. A God can sacrifice itself in many ways and many
times, the end result would still not able to change humans behaviours
because each humans is unique with their own sense of judgement.

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?


http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html


Bumper Sticker

l=========================================================================l
Divine Insanity

God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!

l=========================================================================l

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?
So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

1. Its an "iron law" that sin must bring suffering.
That may be true (or not) but it evades the question of why God
couldnt have altered, abolished, or softened the rule.

It's virtually, but not quite, a tautology. If an action brings suffering

2. As God of righteousness, He had no moral choice but to be angry at
sin.
That sounda a "little" better until we realize that its an argument
for why God could not have forgiven mankind in the first place. But
since God granted His grace (according to Christians) on an totally
underserving humanity, the arguement about the rightness of anger sort
of falls apart. Despite His anger, despite the rightness of eternal
punishment for mankind, bingo! Devine grace allows us to be off the
hook. Now there's the small matter of how we get there, which is my
original question.....Given that God wanted to grant His grace, why
all the sturm und drang?

What would you do if your child committed a murder?

It may raise an ethical question, but its not incoherent or
mysterious. Why God allows his only begotten son to be tortured to
death seems way more mysterious and puzzling to me.

It is mysterious. There's no dispute about that. Execution was a forseeable

The death of Jesus does not make humans sinless or do anything about
what humans are. A God can sacrifice itself in many ways and many
times, the end result would still not able to change humans behaviours
because each humans is unique with their own sense of judgement.

There's no dispute that Jesus's has had a substantial impact on human

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?

What most Christians would say is that death is the consequence of sin, and

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?
So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

1. Its an "iron law" that sin must bring suffering.
That may be true (or not) but it evades the question of why God
couldnt have altered, abolished, or softened the rule.

2. As God of righteousness, He had no moral choice but to be angry at
sin.
That sounda a "little" better until we realize that its an argument
for why God could not have forgiven mankind in the first place. But
since God granted His grace (according to Christians) on an totally
underserving humanity, the arguement about the rightness of anger sort
of falls apart. Despite His anger, despite the rightness of eternal
punishment for mankind, bingo! Devine grace allows us to be off the
hook. Now there's the small matter of how we get there, which is my
original question.....Given that God wanted to grant His grace, why
all the sturm und drang?

It may raise an ethical question, but its not incoherent or
mysterious. Why God allows his only begotten son to be tortured to
death seems way more mysterious and puzzling to me.

The death of Jesus does not make humans sinless or do anything about
what humans are. A God can sacrifice itself in many ways and many
times, the end result would still not able to change humans behaviours
because each humans is unique with their own sense of judgement.

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html

Bumper Sticker
l=========================================================================l
Divine Insanity

God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!
l=========================================================================l

"Truth Hunter" <hunter77099@yahoo.com> wrote

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?
So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

1. Its an "iron law" that sin must bring suffering.
That may be true (or not) but it evades the question of why God
couldnt have altered, abolished, or softened the rule.

It's virtually, but not quite, a tautology. If an action brings suffering
then the presumption is that it is sinful. If an action is sinful then
normally it must bring suffering to someone or to something. God can't
abolish that rule any more than He can abolish the rule that jokes must
bring laughter.

2. As God of righteousness, He had no moral choice but to be angry at
sin.
That sounda a "little" better until we realize that its an argument
for why God could not have forgiven mankind in the first place. But
since God granted His grace (according to Christians) on an totally
underserving humanity, the arguement about the rightness of anger sort
of falls apart. Despite His anger, despite the rightness of eternal
punishment for mankind, bingo! Devine grace allows us to be off the
hook. Now there's the small matter of how we get there, which is my
original question.....Given that God wanted to grant His grace, why
all the sturm und drang?

What would you do if your child committed a murder?

It may raise an ethical question, but its not incoherent or
mysterious. Why God allows his only begotten son to be tortured to
death seems way more mysterious and puzzling to me.

It is mysterious. There's no dispute about that. Execution was a forseeable
consequence of preaching good in a country ruled by a corrupt foreign
military regime, and with a native elite who had an interest in the
established religious system.

The death of Jesus does not make humans sinless or do anything about
what humans are. A God can sacrifice itself in many ways and many
times, the end result would still not able to change humans behaviours
because each humans is unique with their own sense of judgement.

There's no dispute that Jesus's has had a substantial impact on human
behaviour. What it hasn't done is immediately made everyone sinless.
If humans have free will, then by definition they cannot be forced. Coke
can't force me not to buy that can of Pepsi, but their ads can certainly
persuade me.

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?

What most Christians would say is that death is the consequence of sin, and
that Jesus had to suffer death to experience the consequences of sin to its
fullest. Otherwise a murder victim could say "you, Jesus, have not
experienced death. I refuse to allow my killer to be forgiven, and you would
do the same, had it happened to you." If Jesus had asked God to send "more
than twelve legions of angels to [His] ... defence" that would have proved
that if you have military power in reserve then you can impose your will.
This isn't a complete answer to your question, but the way God chose doesn't
appear to be entirely irrational.

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

On 31 Jul 2004 08:58:30 -0700, hunter77099@yahoo.com (Truth Hunter)
wrote:

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die


He enjoyed it, that's the only plausible answer. God, being God, can
do ANYTHING, including redeeming mankind without needing any
sacrifice.

lecherous pedophile

muhammad (piss be upon him) fourteen hundred years ago

"W. Syme" <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:be24ff0b5dd99f07408c51057332fd9e@news.1usenet.com...
On 31 Jul 2004 08:58:30 -0700, hunter77099@yahoo.com (Truth Hunter)
wrote:

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die


He enjoyed it, that's the only plausible answer. God, being God, can
do ANYTHING, including redeeming mankind without needing any
sacrifice.

Can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot life it?

Can he make a 60 year old man instantly? Not someone who looks sixty, but is
sixty.

Can he make sense of this, can you?

Take the resurrection & post resurrection accounts of the 4 gospels and acts
and write a harmony.

Try to do it in the form of a play: where the scene it, who is there, what
happened, who said what.

There are only 8 or so chapters.

But the important thing is: do it without leaving out a single one of those
god inspired inerrant details.

God became man in the person of Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the redemption of
man's sin and the salvation of his soul.

Why? Was God UNABLE to FORGIVE the actions of his own creation who
were merely acting the way God designed them to act?

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

Why God couldnt or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?

If there's anything that seems to be unique to Christianity, it is the
notion that God redeemed mankind by allowing his only begotten son to
suffer and die

I'm simply asking how Christians understand or explain why God couldnt
or didnt save mankind with less gruesome tactics?
So far I've seen two stabs at an answer, neither of which seem very
plausible (But then, as a non Christian, I probably have a different
idea of whats plausible)

1. Its an "iron law" that sin must bring suffering.
That may be true (or not) but it evades the question of why God
couldnt have altered, abolished, or softened the rule.

2. As God of righteousness, He had no moral choice but to be angry at
sin.
That sounda a "little" better until we realize that its an argument
for why God could not have forgiven mankind in the first place. But
since God granted His grace (according to Christians) on an totally
underserving humanity, the arguement about the rightness of anger sort
of falls apart. Despite His anger, despite the rightness of eternal
punishment for mankind, bingo! Devine grace allows us to be off the
hook. Now there's the small matter of how we get there, which is my
original question.....Given that God wanted to grant His grace, why
all the sturm und drang?

It may raise an ethical question, but its not incoherent or
mysterious. Why God allows his only begotten son to be tortured to
death seems way more mysterious and puzzling to me.

The death of Jesus does not make humans sinless or do anything about
what humans are. A God can sacrifice itself in many ways and many
times, the end result would still not able to change humans behaviours
because each humans is unique with their own sense of judgement.

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved
by milder means?


http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html


Bumper Sticker
l=========================================================================l
Divine Insanity

God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!
l=========================================================================l

"..." <.@.com> wrote in message
news:<ceggc5$27l$1@mawar.singnet.com.sg>...
lecherous pedophile

muhammad (piss be upon him) fourteen hundred years ago

Muhammed was a disgusting pedophile and those who spread his teachings
are
more disgusting than him:

Comment: When Muhammed was about 50 years old he had dreams of marrying
a
child, Aisha, who was only about 4-5 years old. How do we know this?
Muhammed lived about 570 A.D. to 632 A.D.,

Disproved numerous times.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:03:28 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

God became man in the person of Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the
redemption of
man's sin and the salvation of his soul.

Why? Was God UNABLE to FORGIVE the actions of his own creation who
were merely acting the way God designed them to act?

How do Chistians explain why redemption could not have been achieved



"You stupid smuck can't you read the Holy Bible, and not your demonic
occult books jew boy. We don't need your lying demonic idiotic self in
here you stupid evil Jew. Yes we know you serve Satan, as your master
Jew! Go to HELL Jew you be there soon enough you atheist dog!"
---PHILLIP RAY HOLMES