Jesus paid the price? Paid who? What mercy?

[Avoice]

Christians hold Jesus to be God. At least most of them believe this.

They believe God died to pay the price for the sins of man.

I'd like to know just who is he paying this price to ? Himself?

Christians believe man can kill God. That's absurd.
It's just as rediculous as God dying so he can pay himself.

Christians see the God of the (falsely called) old testament angry and having little compassion. But claim Jesus to be loving and merciful. What mercy is there in the (falsely called) new testament?
Who is merciful?

Let's compare the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A god who forgives our sins if we just acknowledge them and change our ways? A God who says one sins will not even be remembered.

Or the Christian God Jesus? ACCORDING to Christianity SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE PRICE.
Imagine a courtroom and God sitting on the bench. A criminal is told he will be put in prison if he does not pay the million dollar fine. He has no money. He is led out if the courtroom to begin his sentence when someone stands up and tells the judge (god) that he'll pay the million dollars. God accepts the money and then let's the criminal go free.
Where's the mercy? A merciful judge doesn't demand someone pay the price.
How is Christianity's opinion of god merciful?
A merciful God shows mercy. How is a demand of payment merciful?

[1213]

...
I get what you are saying but not how death comes into it. Dead seeds don't do anything but rot.

I think, when seed begins to grow, it kind of dies. But, maybe the meaning is something else.

[brunumb]

Now personally I think that whole thing is absurd. It is equally absurd to suggest that it would not be a sacrifice for Jesus to die on the cross as it would be to suggest that it is not a sacrifice for a person to give up his life for his family, regardless of what he thinks lays beyond the grave.

How was Jesus dying on the cross a sacrifice?

While you are at it, perhaps you can address the following also. What payment is God requiring and why? He can't offer mercy to mankind without demanding that someone pays for it and so he accepts the death of Jesus instead. What has God sacrificed? What has Jesus sacrificed? Neither really lost anything. As I said, demanding payment for being merciful makes it a business transaction and hardly equates to a loving act on the part of God/Jesus.

[brunumb]

...
I get what you are saying but not how death comes into it. Dead seeds don't do anything but rot.

I think, when seed begins to grow, it kind of dies. But, maybe the meaning is something else.

The passage does not suggest that the seed dies after it begins to grow. Perhaps one should not quote passages where one does not know the meaning in support of some argument one is trying to make.

[bjs1]

How was Jesus dying on the cross a sacrifice?

While you are at it, perhaps you can address the following also. What payment is God requiring and why? He can't offer mercy to mankind without demanding that someone pays for it and so he accepts the death of Jesus instead. What has God sacrificed? What has Jesus sacrificed? Neither really lost anything. As I said, demanding payment for being merciful makes it a business transaction and hardly equates to a loving act on the part of God/Jesus.

We seem to have reached a point of repetition, as all of these question have already been discussed.

Issues like “[God] can't offer mercy to mankind without demanding that someone pays for it” were addressed in detail in post 12.

A standard that does not treat Jesus’ death as a sacrifice could not reasonably treat any death as a sacrifice, and that issue has been discussed in subsequent posts.

If there is nothing new to discuss, then I can’t see us coming to agreement on this and I wish you well.

[brunumb]

Issues like “[God] can't offer mercy to mankind without demanding that someone pays for it” were addressed in detail in post 12.

Addressed, but failed to explain why.

A standard that does not treat Jesus’ death as a sacrifice could not reasonably treat any death as a sacrifice, and that issue has been discussed in subsequent posts.

The death of Jesus is in no way like any other death given who he is supposed to be and his subsequent bouncing back, good as new.

If there is nothing new to discuss, then I can’t see us coming to agreement on this and I wish you well.

There may be nothing new to address but it would have been nice to get some sort of validation of the claims that have been made and a few other questions answered first. Since you appear to be unable or unwilling, then farewell.

[bjs1]

Issues like “[God] can't offer mercy to mankind without demanding that someone pays for it” were addressed in detail in post 12.

Addressed, but failed to explain why.

A standard that does not treat Jesus’ death as a sacrifice could not reasonably treat any death as a sacrifice, and that issue has been discussed in subsequent posts.

The death of Jesus is in no way like any other death given who he is supposed to be and his subsequent bouncing back, good as new.

If there is nothing new to discuss, then I can’t see us coming to agreement on this and I wish you well.

There may be nothing new to address but it would have been nice to get some sort of validation of the claims that have been made and a few other questions answered first. Since you appear to be unable or unwilling, then farewell.

I understand that you feel that way. I would have liked it if you actually addressed some of the things I wrote on these topics. As that dose not seem likely to happen, we can both move on.

[brunumb]

I would have liked it if you actually addressed some of the things I wrote on these topics.

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps you should go back and re-read this thread. I'm taking your response as a typical cut-and-run.

[Purple Knight]

I like it too, but you wouldn't even need an argument to defend yourself. Someone else would need an argument - a flawless one - to declare what you did to be wrong. And for that, they would need someone with moral authority. You've got that; you've got the Bible...

I think the person whose hand is cut is rightful to say is it wrong. Also, if I would be cutting someone’s hand, I should ask first from myself, do I allow the other to do the same to me. If I would answer, "no, it is wrong", then I can’t also do that to the other person, because I have said it is wrong.

This requires "don't be a hypocrite" to be a moral law. It may be, but if it is, I can't write it, because I can't just make up moral laws and have them be binding on others.

There's some Bible verse about how people don't sin against each other, only against God. It's strange that as an atheist I agree with it, but I do, because in the context of the Bible the character God is a moral being who has the ability I lack: It can write moral laws and have them be binding on others.

[1213]

This requires "don't be a hypocrite" to be a moral law. ...

Sorry, I disagree whit that, I don’t think in this case such law would be required, because the whole matter is only about what rights people have.

[Purple Knight]

This requires "don't be a hypocrite" to be a moral law. ...

Sorry, I disagree whit that, I don’t think in this case such law would be required, because the whole matter is only about what rights people have.

That's exactly correct. It's about what rights people have and what rights they don't have.

I don't have any rights, because I can't make any up for myself. I can't just reach into the aether and pull out whatever rights I like, you can't do this to me, you can't do that to me. And if we're all equal that's even more of a disaster, with everyone imposing whatever rights they want on everyone else.

No; at least some people have to be non-moral beings, meaning they cannot generate rights. I am a non-moral being. Whether you are or aren't, I don't know.