I realize, as with every other comment that questions faith, this thread might rub some people the wrong way. But I remember this being an issue that undermined my faith when I still had it. Do you realize that God can forgive whoever He wants, whenever He wants, without needing to slaughter goats or crucify anyone—and it would be totally fine? He could simply delete the entire record of sins, and no one could say sh!t about it. Like, delete the database and completely format the hard drive—and that move would still be completely valid.

If Stephen could forgive his stoners, God can forgive Satan. And not even the vilest sin—not even Hitler’s genocide—is deserving of eternal suffering. A couple million lifetimes, maybe—one for each soul lost—but an eternity? That’s too extreme for any sin that could possibly be committed.

And don’t even get me started on the idea of a genuinely good person—someone who actually puts in the effort to be decent and live right—burning in hell forever simply for not believing the right story. That will never make sense to me.

All said, I really like Jesus, I think he was a cool fella and I absolutely dig his vibe and it's just sad that he was murdered by the state out of jealousy of a handful of religious leaders. I think the main Easter message is for people to interrogate the influence of authority, particularly religious authority.

DemonSlayer:
I realize, as with every other comment that questions faith, this thread might rub some people the wrong way. But I remember this being an issue that undermined my faith when I still had it. Do you realize that God can forgive whoever He wants, whenever He wants, without needing to slaughter goats or crucify anyone—and it would be totally fine? He could simply delete the entire record of sins, and no one could say sh!t about it. Like, delete the database and completely format the hard drive—and that move would still be completely valid.

If Stephen could forgive his stoners, God can forgive Satan. And not even the vilest sin—not even Hitler’s genocide—is deserving of eternal suffering. A couple million lifetimes, maybe—one for each soul lost—but an eternity? That’s too extreme for any sin that could possibly be committed.

And don’t even get me started on the idea of a genuinely good person—someone who actually puts in the effort to be decent and live right—burning in hell forever simply for not believing the right story. That will never make sense to me.

All said, I really like Jesus, I think he was a cool fella and I absolutely dig his vibe and it's just sad that he was murdered by the state out of jealousy of a handful of religious leaders. I think the main Easter message is for people to interrogate the influence of authority, particularly religious authority.

Does the Bible teach that God will burn people forever in Hell?

DemonSlayer:
I realize, as with every other comment that questions faith, this thread might rub some people the wrong way. But I remember this being an issue that undermined my faith when I still had it. Do you realize that God can forgive whoever He wants, whenever He wants, without needing to slaughter goats or crucify anyone—and it would be totally fine? He could simply delete the entire record of sins, and no one could say sh!t about it. Like, delete the database and completely format the hard drive—and that move would still be completely valid.

If Stephen could forgive his stoners, God can forgive Satan. And not even the vilest sin—not even Hitler’s genocide—is deserving of eternal suffering. A couple million lifetimes, maybe—one for each soul lost—but an eternity? That’s too extreme for any sin that could possibly be committed.

And don’t even get me started on the idea of a genuinely good person—someone who actually puts in the effort to be decent and live right—burning in hell forever simply for not believing the right story. That will never make sense to me.

All said, I really like Jesus, I think he was a cool fella and I absolutely dig his vibe and it's just sad that he was murdered by the state out of jealousy of a handful of religious leaders. I think the main Easter message is for people to interrogate the influence of authority, particularly religious authority.

The cross isn’t about God’s inability to forgive—it’s about the fullness of His justice and love meeting in one powerful moment. If God simply wiped away humanity’s sin without addressing the real weight of evil, He would be a merciful God, but not a just one. On the other hand, if He chose to prove His justice without showing compassion, He would be just, but not loving. The cross is where both justice and love collide perfectly—where God says, “I love you enough to take the hit Myself.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Thankgod89:


The cross isn’t about God’s inability to forgive—it’s about the fullness of His justice and love meeting in one powerful moment. If God simply wiped away humanity’s sin without addressing the real weight of evil, He would be a merciful God, but not a just one. On the other hand, if He chose to prove His justice without showing compassion, He would be just, but not loving. The cross is where both justice and love collide perfectly—where God says, “I love you enough to take the hit Myself.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Was it God himself that died or his son?

Truthseeker10:

Was it God himself that died or his son?

I'm not going to engage in endless arguments. However it appears to you, so be it.

If you believe God died to save the world — you're welcome.
If you believe the Son of God (Christ) died to save the world — you're still welcome.

The Bible verse I shared in my response still points to God.
Whether you believe it was God Himself or His Son who died — the message remains.

Shalom!

Thankgod89:


I'm not going to engage in endless arguments. However it appears to you, so be it.

If you believe God died to save the world — you're welcome.
If you believe the Son of God (Christ) died to save the world — you're still welcome.

The Bible verse I shared in my response still points to God.
Whether you believe it was God Himself or His Son who died — the message remains.

Shalom!

😂😂😂....funny man.....So who was the son that was sent if it was God Himself that came to die, and who sent the Son? Or Did God send himself to die?

Truthseeker10:

😂😂😂....funny man.....So who was the son that was sent if it was God Himself that came to die, and who sent the Son? Or Did God send himself to die?

Keep on showcasing your ignorance, thinking you're making valid points. I've already told you I don't have the energy for endless arguments, despite the fact that I never give you a direct answer. Yet you still come back, only to expose your own foolishness."

Thankgod89:


Keep on showcasing your ignorance, thinking you're making valid points. I've already told you I don't have the energy for endless arguments, despite the fact that I never give you a direct answer. Yet you still come back, only to expose your own foolishness."

😂😂😂The pain of been boxed with nowhere to go.

DemonSlayer:
I realize, as with every other comment that questions faith, this thread might rub some people the wrong way. But I remember this being an issue that undermined my faith when I still had it. Do you realize that God can forgive whoever He wants, whenever He wants, without needing to slaughter goats or crucify anyone—and it would be totally fine? He could simply delete the entire record of sins, and no one could say sh!t about it. Like, delete the database and completely format the hard drive—and that move would still be completely valid.

If Stephen could forgive his stoners, God can forgive Satan. And not even the vilest sin—not even Hitler’s genocide—is deserving of eternal suffering. A couple million lifetimes, maybe—one for each soul lost—but an eternity? That’s too extreme for any sin that could possibly be committed.

And don’t even get me started on the idea of a genuinely good person—someone who actually puts in the effort to be decent and live right—burning in hell forever simply for not believing the right story. That will never make sense to me.

All said, I really like Jesus, I think he was a cool fella and I absolutely dig his vibe and it's just sad that he was murdered by the state out of jealousy of a handful of religious leaders. I think the main Easter message is for people to interrogate the influence of authority, particularly religious authority.

You once had faith but now an apostate, what really is your point?

Heb.11.3 - Through faith we understand that ..........

You must have faith to understand or any other reasonable thinking is useless here.

DemonSlayer:
➜...And don’t even get me started on the idea of a genuinely good person—someone who actually puts in the effort to be decent and live right—burning in hell forever simply for not believing the right story. That will never make sense to me.
➜All said, I really like Jesus, I think he was a cool fella and I absolutely dig his vibe and it's just sad that he was murdered by the state out of jealousy of a handful of religious leaders.
➜ I think the main Easter message is for people to interrogate the influence of authority, particularly religious authority.

1. All those are false tales fed to you by your religious overlords. None of that is found anywhere in the book of Israelite Scriptures, which you pretend to quote.

2. Would you rather He, Jesus Christ of Israel, lived forever?

3. Nonsense! Easter is a pagan holiday for people to relax, and maybe hang out with friends and family. It has absolutely nothing to do with the person of Jesus Christ of Israel as it has no direct or indirect connection to him except for the ideas fed you by your religious overlords.

Thankgod89:


The cross isn’t about God’s inability to forgive—it’s about the fullness of His justice and love meeting in one powerful moment. If God simply wiped away humanity’s sin without addressing the real weight of evil, He would be a merciful God, but not a just one. On the other hand, if He chose to prove His justice without showing compassion, He would be just, but not loving. The cross is where both justice and love collide perfectly—where God says, “I love you enough to take the hit Myself.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I get what you’re trying to say, and I understand that for many people, the cross represents something deeply meaningful, I'm not trying to be offensive, please don't be offended. But honestly, I think it still doesn’t hold up when you zoom out.

So the cross is supposed to be where God's justice and love meet—but why do they even have to be in conflict in the first place? Why would God need to “satisfy” His own justice to Himself? If you wronged me, and instead of forgiving you or talking it through, I slaughtered my own child to make peace with you, I’d be deemed psychotic. But when God does it, it’s somehow considered beautiful? Other religions, e.g Islam, embrace a God who is merciful and just—without contradiction. It makes more sense.

God is the creator of all things—including love, mercy, and justice. These qualities flow from Him. If He needs blood to forgive disobedience, that’s not justice—it’s a choice. And a disturbing one at that. Imagine your child breaks a rule you created (one you knew they’d break), and for justice to be “satisfied,” someone needs to die. But because you love her, you kill yourself instead to appease your own standard of justice. Be honest—doesn’t that sound absurd?

The idea that “sin must be paid for” paints a picture of a God who is bound by a system of rules, rather than One who defines them. Why not choose restorative justice instead of punitive justice? To err is human, to forgive is divine, no?

And what about “the wages of sin is death”? Imagine if every citizen who broke a traffic law was sentenced to death by hanging—right alongside those guilty of r@pe or murd€r. A single, unbending punishment, regardless of the offense. That’s not justice—that’s tyranny.

And let’s not even get started on the idea of original sin—the notion that guilt is inherited, that we are born deserving punishment for something we didn’t do. What kind of justice system is that?

MightySparrow:

You once had faith but now an apostate, what really is your point?

Heb.11.3 - Through faith we understand that ..........

You must have faith to understand or any other reasonable thinking is useless here.

I get you, even if I don't agree that faith is a prerequisite for understanding. There are many books and many stories, we have the freedom to disagree with the ideas they present, it's often never enough to quote one book to shut up dissenting views.

If guess it’s easier to use reason to dismantle the flaws in other points of view, but when it comes to our own, faith tends to step in as a shield for the incomprehensible. In fact, through faith, you can believe anything—often at the expense of reason—leaving room for gullibility to take root.

DemonSlayer:



I get what you’re trying to say, and I understand that for many people, the cross represents something deeply meaningful, I'm not trying to be offensive, please don't be offended. But honestly, I think it still doesn’t hold up when you zoom out.

So the cross is supposed to be where God's justice and love meet—but why do they even have to be in conflict in the first place? Why would God need to “satisfy” His own justice to Himself? If you wronged me, and instead of forgiving you or talking it through, I slaughtered my own child to make peace with you, I’d be deemed psychotic. But when God does it, it’s somehow considered beautiful? Other religions, e.g Islam, embrace a God who is merciful and just—without contradiction. It makes more sense.

God is the creator of all things—including love, mercy, and justice. These qualities flow from Him. If He needs blood to forgive disobedience, that’s not justice—it’s a choice. And a disturbing one at that. Imagine your child breaks a rule you created (one you knew they’d break), and for justice to be “satisfied,” someone needs to die. But because you love her, you kill yourself instead to appease your own standard of justice. Be honest—doesn’t that sound absurd?

The idea that “sin must be paid for” paints a picture of a God who is bound by a system of rules, rather than One who defines them. Why not choose restorative justice instead of punitive justice? To err is human, to forgive is divine, no?

And what about “the wages of sin is death”? Imagine if every citizen who broke a traffic law was sentenced to death by hanging—right alongside those guilty of r@pe or murd€r. A single, unbending punishment, regardless of the offense. That’s not justice—that’s tyranny.

And let’s not even get started on the idea of original sin—the notion that guilt is inherited, that we are born deserving punishment for something we didn’t do. What kind of justice system is that?

Let me share a perspective,not to argue but to offer another lens:

You’re absolutely right in saying that God is the source of justice, love, and mercy. These aren’t qualities He’s subject to; they flow from His very nature. But that’s exactly why they can’t be compromised or played against each other. Love without justice ignores real harm. Justice without love crushes the guilty. The cross is not God at war with Himself—it’s God expressing the full depth of both justice and love, simultaneously.

Your analogy about slaughtering your own child to forgive someone is powerful, but I think it’s missing something key: Jesus wasn’t just an innocent third party. In my belief and according to the scripture (John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh",) Jesus is God in the flesh. He wasn’t a victim caught in the middle—He was the one choosing to step in. That changes the entire picture. It’s more like a judge stepping down from the bench to serve the sentence on behalf of the guilty. It’s radical, yes but not senseless. It’s not God needing blood to calm Himself, it’s God absorbing the cost of justice Himself, so that mercy can be real and still be righteous.

You brought up restorative justice, and I love that. That’s actually what the cross is aiming at not just pardon, but transformation. In Christ, sin isn’t just excused, it’s dealt with. Evil is named, exposed, and broken. And we’re invited not just to be forgiven, but to be made new.

As for original sin, that’s a heavy doctrine. But it’s not about God punishing people for something they didn’t do; it’s about acknowledging that we’re born into a broken system. We all experience and contribute to a world shaped by generations of pride, injustice, and pain. The doctrine says, “This is not how things were meant to be.” And the good news is that God doesn’t leave us in it. Through Christ, He offers a new start, a new nature, and a new family.

Finally, your question about the “wages of sin is death” is fair. But it’s not about God punishing every offense with equal fury, it’s about separation from the source of life. Sin, by nature, disconnects us from God. [/b]And death is just the name for that disconnect. But the story doesn’t end there. “[b]The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Kobojunkie:
1. All those are false tales fed to you by your religious overlords. None of that is found anywhere in the book of Israelite Scriptures, which you pretend to quote.

Please enlighten me. Which is this "book of Israelite Scriptures"? I'm not sure I'm familiar with this book, not to mention pretending to quote it. Also, who are these "religious overlords"?

2. Would you rather He, Jesus Christ of Israel, lived forever?

I'd rather he lived a full life and died in peace of old age. I wish he had written a book or a couple of them to pass on his own ideas directly, rather than all the hearsay accounts we have.

3. Nonsense! Easter is a pagan holiday for people to relax, and maybe hang out with friends and family. It has absolutely nothing to do with the person of Jesus Christ of Israel as it has no direct or indirect connection to him except for the ideas fed you by your religious overlords.

I get you, and I actually tend to agree about the origin of Easter. For whatever historical reasons, it has come to have a strong connection with Jesus for the majority of people who celebrate it, and I speak from this context.

DemonSlayer:
➜Please enlighten me. Which is this "book of Israelite Scriptures"? I'm not sure I'm familiar with this book, not to mention pretending to quote it. Also, who are these "religious overlords"?
➜I'd rather he lived a full life and died in peace of old age. I wish he had written a book or a couple of them to pass on his own ideas directly, rather than all the hearsay accounts we have.
➜I get you, and I actually tend to agree about the origin of Easter. For whatever historical reasons, it has come to have a strong connection with Jesus for the majority of people who celebrate it, and I speak from this context.

The books compiled into the compendium called your Bible are of Israelite origin, are they not? And those books tell a completely different tale from the one spread about by your many religious overlords, from whom your particular understanding also comes.

2. Did Jesus Christ of Israel complain to you that He had to die early? I mean the guy is literally recorded to have boasted that He alone has the power to give up His own life and take it back up again, and that He gave it up in order to gain the reward that awaits Him after it. So, why do you pretend Jesus Christ of Israel is somehow to be pitied for not living what you regard as full life?

3. There is no such strong connection to Jesus Christ of Israel except that created in the minds of the deluded who would believe such nonsense. The fact remains that there is no direct or indirect connection between Jesus Christ of Israel and your Easter celebrations. It is all in the imaginations of those who wish to hold on to such delusions. And last I checked, delusions are mental issues that mostly have nothing to do with facts.

DemonSlayer:
➜I get you, even if I don't agree that faith is a prerequisite for understanding. There are many books and many stories, we have the freedom to disagree with the ideas they present, it's often never enough to quote one book to shut up dissenting views.
➜ If guess it’s easier to use reason to dismantle the flaws in other points of view, but when it comes to our own, faith tends to step in as a shield for the incomprehensible. In fact, through faith, you can believe anything—often at the expense of reason—leaving room for gullibility to take root.

1. But none of what you stated in your OP connects back to what is in fact written in any of the books contained in the compendium called The Bible. And yes, I don't believe the religious delusion that is faith is a prerequisite for understanding, but going around spewing religious rhetoric— gobbledegook— does not equally amount to having understanding of the actual content of the book.

2. Reason can only exist where there is understanding. And the ability to reason is one thing religion, or at least subscribing to religious delusions, gradually deprives one of. If your understanding amounts to the same gobbledegook spewed by the religious(they first need their faith delusion to comprehend what is written in the book), then what makes you think your grasp of reason is different or better then theirs?

Thankgod89:


Let me share a perspective,not to argue but to offer another lens:

You’re absolutely right in saying that God is the source of justice, love, and mercy. These aren’t qualities He’s subject to; they flow from His very nature. But that’s exactly why they can’t be compromised or played against each other. Love without justice ignores real harm. Justice without love crushes the guilty. The cross is not God at war with Himself—it’s God expressing the full depth of both justice and love, simultaneously.

Your analogy about slaughtering your own child to forgive someone is powerful, but I think it’s missing something key: Jesus wasn’t just an innocent third party. In my belief and according to the scripture (John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh",) Jesus is God in the flesh. He wasn’t a victim caught in the middle—He was the one choosing to step in. That changes the entire picture. It’s more like a judge stepping down from the bench to serve the sentence on behalf of the guilty. It’s radical, yes but not senseless. It’s not God needing blood to calm Himself, it’s God absorbing the cost of justice Himself, so that mercy can be real and still be righteous.

You brought up restorative justice, and I love that. That’s actually what the cross is aiming at not just pardon, but transformation. In Christ, sin isn’t just excused, it’s dealt with. Evil is named, exposed, and broken. And we’re invited not just to be forgiven, but to be made new.

As for original sin, that’s a heavy doctrine. But it’s not about God punishing people for something they didn’t do; it’s about acknowledging that we’re born into a broken system. We all experience and contribute to a world shaped by generations of pride, injustice, and pain. The doctrine says, “This is not how things were meant to be.” And the good news is that God doesn’t leave us in it. Through Christ, He offers a new start, a new nature, and a new family.

Finally, your question about the “wages of sin is death” is fair. But it’s not about God punishing every offense with equal fury, it’s about separation from the source of life. Sin, by nature, disconnects us from God. [/b]And death is just the name for that disconnect. But the story doesn’t end there. “[b]The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Cool stuff, especially the last paragraph.

I get that wrongdoing has consequences and often causes harm that demands restitution. But here’s the thing: from the very beginning of the story, the so-called “Original Sin” was disobedience. People ate a fruit they were forbidden to eat. They didn’t kill anyone—not even an animal. They didn’t lie to put anyone in danger. They didn’t commit theft or arson. They literally did not harm a soul in any physical sense. The punishment? Death.

My understanding of what you said is that justice is needed to account for harm done. So, who exactly did they harm? God? Can God be harmed? Themselves? So they needed to be k!lled (spiritually) for harming themselves? That’s justice?

Consider this alternative narrative: God strolls in during the evening and discovers (even though He already knew before He even created them) what the humans have done. He calls them out, does a bit of a shakedown to help them understand the seriousness of disobedience. He gives them a chance to say sorry—they do. Then He says, “You know what? I forgive you, but I’m still going to punish you so the lesson sinks in. You’re grounded for a month. No tending to the garden, no playing with cheetahs and hyenas, no roaming. You’ll stay around the Tree of Life for a month to reflect on what you’ve done.” The humans and their Maker are reconciled. They serve their punishment and learn their lesson.

We don’t kick our toddlers out of the house for breaking a plate. Why should the very Embodiment of Love sever ties with His most precious creations over a first-time offense—when “I forgive you; go and sin no more” could have been sufficient?

Christianity is filled with heavy doctrines. Frankly, some of it feels very convoluted, so much acrobatics to make things comprehensive. I appreciate how Islam doesn't need all that; Original Sin, Crucifixion, etc, as far as justice, mercy and salvation goes.

DemonSlayer:



I get what you’re trying to say, and I understand that for many people, the cross represents something deeply meaningful, I'm not trying to be offensive, please don't be offended. But honestly, I think it still doesn’t hold up when you zoom out.

So the cross is supposed to be where God's justice and love meet—but why do they even have to be in conflict in the first place? Why would God need to “satisfy” His own justice to Himself? If you wronged me, and instead of forgiving you or talking it through, I slaughtered my own child to make peace with you, I’d be deemed psychotic. But when God does it, it’s somehow considered beautiful? Other religions, e.g Islam, embrace a God who is merciful and just—without contradiction. It makes more sense.

God is the creator of all things—including love, mercy, and justice. These qualities flow from Him. If He needs blood to forgive disobedience, that’s not justice—it’s a choice. And a disturbing one at that. Imagine your child breaks a rule you created (one you knew they’d break), and for justice to be “satisfied,” someone needs to die. But because you love her, you kill yourself instead to appease your own standard of justice. Be honest—doesn’t that sound absurd?

The idea that “sin must be paid for” paints a picture of a God who is bound by a system of rules, rather than One who defines them. Why not choose restorative justice instead of punitive justice? To err is human, to forgive is divine, no?

And what about “the wages of sin is death”? Imagine if every citizen who broke a traffic law was sentenced to death by hanging—right alongside those guilty of r@pe or murd€r. A single, unbending punishment, regardless of the offense. That’s not justice—that’s tyranny.

And let’s not even get started on the idea of original sin—the notion that guilt is inherited, that we are born deserving punishment for something we didn’t do. What kind of justice system is that?

But don't you think that you are trying to define Justice based on your own viewpoint instead of the viewpoint of the creator? Do you really think that you have the right to determine what Justice is?

Thankgod89:


Let me share a perspective,not to argue but to offer another lens:

You’re absolutely right in saying that God is the source of justice, love, and mercy. These aren’t qualities He’s subject to; they flow from His very nature. But that’s exactly why they can’t be compromised or played against each other. Love without justice ignores real harm. Justice without love crushes the guilty. The cross is not God at war with Himself—it’s God expressing the full depth of both justice and love, simultaneously.

Your analogy about slaughtering your own child to forgive someone is powerful, but I think it’s missing something key: Jesus wasn’t just an innocent third party. In my belief and according to the scripture (John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh",) Jesus is God in the flesh. He wasn’t a victim caught in the middle—He was the one choosing to step in. That changes the entire picture. It’s more like a judge stepping down from the bench to serve the sentence on behalf of the guilty. It’s radical, yes but not senseless. It’s not God needing blood to calm Himself, it’s God absorbing the cost of justice Himself, so that mercy can be real and still be righteous.

You brought up restorative justice, and I love that. That’s actually what the cross is aiming at not just pardon, but transformation. In Christ, sin isn’t just excused, it’s dealt with. Evil is named, exposed, and broken. And we’re invited not just to be forgiven, but to be made new.

As for original sin, that’s a heavy doctrine. But it’s not about God punishing people for something they didn’t do; it’s about acknowledging that we’re born into a broken system. We all experience and contribute to a world shaped by generations of pride, injustice, and pain. The doctrine says, “This is not how things were meant to be.” And the good news is that God doesn’t leave us in it. Through Christ, He offers a new start, a new nature, and a new family.

Finally, your question about the “wages of sin is death” is fair. But it’s not about God punishing every offense with equal fury, it’s about separation from the source of life. Sin, by nature, disconnects us from God. [/b]And death is just the name for that disconnect. But the story doesn’t end there. “[b]The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

😂😂😂so according to you.....God sent himself to die for Humans. So your creator died?

Kobojunkie:
1. But none of what you stated in your OP connects back to what is in fact written in any of the books contained in the compendium called The Bible. And yes, I don't believe the religious delusion that is faith is a prerequisite for understanding, but going around spewing religious rhetoric— gobbledegook— does not equally amount to having understanding of the actual content of the book.

2. Reason can only exist where there is understanding. And the ability to reason is one thing religion, or at least subscribing to religious delusions, gradually deprives one of. If your understanding amounts to the same gobbledegook spewed by the religious(they first need their faith delusion to comprehend what is written in the book), then what makes you think your grasp of reason is different or better then theirs?

I'm not sure you fully understand the angle I'm coming from, so maybe we should take a step back to broaden the context we're speaking from—just to understand each other better.

First off, I'm trying to understand the format of your replies. I'm assuming the numbered comments are meant to address the arrowed points in the quote in a top-to-bottom fashion. Please confirm if that’s the case, because it feels like some of the responses don’t quite align with the corresponding points.

Secondly, just to summarize my OP: I’m essentially expressing my issue with the idea of the necessity of Jesus’ crucifixion to atone for sin. Even though I do so within the framework of the Christian faith, I’m not personally coming from a religious standpoint, but rather assessing the doctrine itself, respectfully—that's what I'm aiming for, at least.

DemonSlayer:


Cool stuff, especially the last paragraph.

I get that wrongdoing has consequences and often causes harm that demands restitution. But here’s the thing: from the very beginning of the story, the so-called “Original Sin” was disobedience. People ate a fruit they were forbidden to eat. They didn’t kill anyone—not even an animal. They didn’t lie to put anyone in danger. They didn’t commit theft or arson. They literally did not harm a soul in any physical sense. The punishment? Death.

My understanding of what you said is that justice is needed to account for harm done. So, who exactly did they harm? God? Can God be harmed? Themselves? So they needed to be k!lled (spiritually) for harming themselves? That’s justice?

Consider this alternative narrative: God strolls in during the evening and discovers (even though He already knew before He even created them) what the humans have done. He calls them out, does a bit of a shakedown to help them understand the seriousness of disobedience. He gives them a chance to say sorry—they do. Then He says, “You know what? I forgive you, but I’m still going to punish you so the lesson sinks in. You’re grounded for a month. No tending to the garden, no playing with cheetahs and hyenas, no roaming. You’ll stay around the Tree of Life for a month to reflect on what you’ve done.” The humans and their Maker are reconciled. They serve their punishment and learn their lesson.

We don’t kick our toddlers out of the house for breaking a plate. Why should the very Embodiment of Love sever ties with His most precious creations over a first-time offense—when “I forgive you; go and sin no more” could have been sufficient?

Christianity is filled with heavy doctrines. Frankly, some of it feels very convoluted, so much acrobatics to make things comprehensive. I appreciate how Islam doesn't need all that; Original Sin, Crucifixion, etc, as far as justice, mercy and salvation goes.

Why should God even punish them at all for disobeying him according to your Analogy above? Could he not forgive them without the drama that you wrote above?

Truthseeker10:

Why should God even punish them at all for disobeying him according to your Analogy above? Could he not forgive them without the drama that you wrote above?

He could, and it'll still make more sense than crucifying Jesus. That's essentially what I'm saying. God can forgive without killing anyone or anything. The timeout I added was so someone won't complain that they got away with disobedience without a deterrent for future offence.

DemonSlayer:


He could, and it'll still make more sense than crucifying Jesus.

So why did you come up with that analogy as the best thing that he could have done after the disobedience?

Truthseeker10:

So why did you come up with that analogy as the best thing that he could have done after the disobedience?

Check above. I've updated.

DemonSlayer:


He could, and it'll still make more sense than crucifying Jesus. That's essentially what I'm saying. God can forgive without killing anyone or anything. The timeout I added was so someone won't complain that they got away with disobedience without a deterrent for future offence.

And why do you think that God needs to care about the complaint of other humans?

DemonSlayer:
➜I'm not sure you fully understand the angle I'm coming from, so maybe we should take a step back to broaden the context we're speaking from—just to understand each other better.
➜ First off, I'm trying to understand the format of your replies. I'm assuming the numbered comments are meant to address the arrowed points in the quote in a top-to-bottom fashion. Please confirm if that’s the case, because it feels like some of the responses don’t quite align with the corresponding points.
➜ Secondly, just to summarize my OP: I’m essentially expressing my issue with the idea of the necessity of Jesus’ crucifixion to atone for sin. Even though I do so within the framework of the Christian faith, I’m not personally coming from a religious standpoint, but rather assessing the doctrine itself, respectfully—that's what I'm aiming for, at least.

1. The bulk of what you claim and seem to believe comes not from The Bible but from the many doctrines compiled by the religion of Christianity, a religion whose only connection is. That is what I have been trying to get you to see here. Yes, there was a man called Jesus Christ who happened to be an Israelite(of the Jewish subset), but everything else you claimed in your OP and insist on after that is not biblical but sourced from the various interpretations that belong instead to the religion of Christianity — religious gobbledegook.

2. Yes!

3. The framework of the Christian faith is the same as arguing from a religious standpoint. This is because the doctrines that comprise the religion of Christianity— its over 46000 different denominations/interpretations included— are 99.99999% removed from the actual content of the Bible —Israelite Scripture. Many of the ideas spewed so far by those who argue from within the religion have nothing to do with the original messages intended by the authors of the individual books, let alone the YHWH of Israel or Jesus Christ of Israel, His Son.

Truthseeker10:

But don't you think that you are trying to define Justice based on your own viewpoint instead of the viewpoint of the creator? Do you really think that you have the right to determine what Justice is?

Sorry, I’ll be a true Nigerian here and answer your questions with more questions—so pardon me.

Where did justice originate from? Does it have multiple “flavours”? Can we say some flavours are better suited for different situations? What exactly is Divine justice? Do different religions define its specifics differently? Who’s right, who’s wrong—and who gets to decide?

DemonSlayer:


Sorry, I'll be a true Nigerian here and answer your questions with more questions, so pardon me.

Where did justice originate from? Does it have multiple "flavours"? Can we say there are certain flavours that are better suited for different situations? What is Divine justice? Do different religions define the specifics differently? Who's right and who's wrong and who's to say?

Who do you think should determine what Justice is?

Kobojunkie:
1. The bulk of what you claim and seem to believe comes not from The Bible but from the many doctrines compiled by the religion of Christianity, a religion whose only connection is. That is what I have been trying to get you to see here. Yes, there was a man called Jesus Christ who happened to be an Israelite(of the Jewish subset), but everything else you claimed in your OP and insist on after that is not biblical but sourced from the various interpretations that belong instead to the religion of Christianity — religious gobbledegook.

2. Yes!

3. The framework of the Christian faith is the same as arguing from a religious standpoint. This is because the doctrines that comprise the religion of Christianity— its over 46000 different denominations/interpretations included— are 99.99999% removed from the actual content of the Bible —Israelite Scripture. Many of the ideas spewed so far by those who argue from within the religion have nothing to do with the original messages intended by the authors of the individual books, let alone the YHWH of Israel or Jesus Christ of Israel, His Son.

But according to you, breadcrumbs(miracle) was given to a Canaanite woman whom Jesus had told he would not give bread na? So was Jesus going against his own words as per what should not be offered to a non isrealites?😂

Truthseeker10:

Who do you think should determine what Justice is?

Who should?

DemonSlayer:


Who should?

You can answer. I don't know.

DemonSlayer:


Cool stuff, especially the last paragraph.

I get that wrongdoing has consequences and often causes harm that demands restitution. But here’s the thing: from the very beginning of the story, the so-called “Original Sin” was disobedience. People ate a fruit they were forbidden to eat. They didn’t kill anyone—not even an animal. They didn’t lie to put anyone in danger. They didn’t commit theft or arson. They literally did not harm a soul in any physical sense. The punishment? Death.

My understanding of what you said is that justice is needed to account for harm done. So, who exactly did they harm? God? Can God be harmed? Themselves? So they needed to be k!lled (spiritually) for harming themselves? That’s justice?

Consider this alternative narrative: God strolls in during the evening and discovers (even though He already knew before He even created them) what the humans have done. He calls them out, does a bit of a shakedown to help them understand the seriousness of disobedience. He gives them a chance to say sorry—they do. Then He says, “You know what? I forgive you, but I’m still going to punish you so the lesson sinks in. You’re grounded for a month. No tending to the garden, no playing with cheetahs and hyenas, no roaming. You’ll stay around the Tree of Life for a month to reflect on what you’ve done.” The humans and their Maker are reconciled. They serve their punishment and learn their lesson.

We don’t kick our toddlers out of the house for breaking a plate. Why should the very Embodiment of Love sever ties with His most precious creations over a first-time offense—when “I forgive you; go and sin no more” could have been sufficient?

Christianity is filled with heavy doctrines. Frankly, some of it feels very convoluted, so much acrobatics to make things comprehensive. I appreciate how Islam doesn't need all that; Original Sin, Crucifixion, etc, as far as justice, mercy and salvation goes.

You're right, it wasn’t murder or theft in the usual sense. It was disobedience. But not just breaking a random rule, it was a rupture in relationship. God gave humans everything, life, freedom, purpose, joy and one boundary to honor His authority and trust. Eating the fruit wasn’t about snacking; it was about saying, “I want to decide what’s right and wrong without You.” It was a declaration of independence from the very Source of life.

The consequence of separating from God isn’t just punishment, it’s death, because God is life. If I unplug a lamp, it doesn’t get punished—it just goes dark. Sin is unplugging from the Source, and darkness naturally follows. It’s not about God being offended over a technicality. It’s about the human race stepping out of harmony with the Creator and everything else unraveling from there.

Could God have just forgiven them? Absolutely. But forgiveness, even for God, isn’t ignoring the reality of damage. True forgiveness costs something emotionally, relationally, even spiritually. And that cost is what Jesus eventually bore. But even in the garden, God didn’t sever ties. He went looking for them. He clothed them. He promised a future Redeemer (Genesis 3:15). Discipline came, yes but not abandonment. It was a fracture, not a final goodbye.

Now about the analogy of parenting, it’s a good one. We don’t disown toddlers for breaking plates, true. But we do teach them that choices have consequences. And if that child one day grows up and says, “I don’t want your rules, your values, or your love, I’ll live how I want,” that’s not just a broken plate. That’s a broken relationship. That’s the tragedy of sin and it’s not that God won’t forgive, it’s that people can choose to reject Him.

I believe in the Holy Bible, guided by the help of the Holy Spirit. I don’t compare my faith with Islam or any other belief system. Someone once asked you question from Hebrews 11:3:
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

From there, the conversation just kept unfolding…

Christianity isn’t filled with heavy doctrines, the message is actually clear. The problem isn’t with the faith, but with how it’s often misunderstood. As Jesus said in John 5:39:
“Search the Scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.”
The heart of it all is Christ. If you truly seek Him through the Word, the message becomes clearer.