Thought experiment

[Elijah John]

Crucifixion is a tortuous death. We hear even today that sometimes evil groups like ISIS crucify innocent people.

Our natural reaction is outrage.

Why is that?

Similarly, many Christians are very quick to proclaim that "Jesus died in our place" and that we all deserved the punishment that Jesus took on our behalf.

Really?

Do we all deserve crucifixion? To be tortured unto death and beyond?

If so, where do we get our sense of outrage when innocent people are crucified?

If supposedly there is no such thing as an innocent person?

[Checkpoint]

Crucifixion is a tortuous death. We hear even today that sometimes evil groups like ISIS crucify innocent people.

Our natural reaction is outrage.

Why is that?

Similarly, many Christians are very quick to proclaim that "Jesus died in our place" and that we all deserved the punishment that Jesus took on our behalf.

Really?

Do we all deserve crucifixion? To be tortured unto death and beyond?

If so, where do we get our sense of outrage when innocent people are crucified?

If supposedly there is no such thing as an innocent person?

Hmm.

This could well become a rather interesting thread.

As I see it, it raises at least two questions or issues.

The first is, is what matters the way he was killed, or the fact that he was killed?

Was his suffering what took place before he died, or was it death itself?

The second is the matter of "innocence" or its lack, of Jesus and of us.

[Divine Insight]

As I see it, it raises at least two questions or issues.

The first is, is what matters the way he was killed, or the fact that he was killed?

Was his suffering what took place before he died, or was it death itself?

I've considered and debated these issues many times over.

I argue that if a brutal crucifixion was not necessary for our salvation then why included it? In other words, ultimately this whole ordeal was "God's Plan". God didn't need to allow Jesus to be crucified if that wasn't HIS PLAN. Therefore the crucifixion would need to have been part of God's Plan.

So the centerfold of Christianity with a crucified Jesus hanging on a cross could only have been God's idea. It cannot be blamed on men. Therefore the brutal crucifixion was necessarily part of what was required for our salvation. Assuming we give this religious paradigm any credence at all.

The second problem I have with this whole scenario is the so-called "death" of Jesus. And this is especially true for those who believe that Jesus was indeed some form of Yahweh incarnated, or even as a facet of God as in the Trinity. How could Jesus die if he was God?

Finally, the mere fact that Jesus rose from the dead a mere three days later and then eventually was taken up into heaven, given eternal life and to be the ruler over heaven for the rest of eternity. That's the reward of saints, not the wages of sin. So even the death part of this religious paradigm makes no sense. Jesus didn't pay the wages of sin for anyone if he was granted eternal life in heaven.

All Christians would be glad to die for a mere three days only to be resurrected and taken up into heaven and granted eternal life. In fact, many men would gladly offer to be crucified in a similar manner to "save humanity" especially if they knew they too would be granted eternal life a mere three days after they had died. In fact, many mortal men would be glad to die and stay dead if they thought their sacrifice would save all the rest of humanity. So in that sense many soldiers, police, firefighters, paramedics, etc., would all be willing to give far more than Jesus gave to save humanity. They are willing to actually die to save another human and stay dead.

So I have always argued that for Christianity to have any merit at all Jesus would have needed to stay dead. The mere fact that he was resurrected destroys the idea that he paid the wages of sin for anyone. He was granted the reward due a saint, he didn't pay the wages of sin. So Jesus would have been a "bounced check" in terms of having paid the wages of sin for anyone.

So this religious paradigm doesn't add up. It's a very poorly-thought-out superstitious tale. No doubt inspired by the crucifixion of an innocent religious man who was wrongfully crucified and then some controversy emerged over what happened to his body after the crucifixion and that gave rise to the whole resurrection myth.

I personally don't believe, not because I think it would be physical impossible, but because I can't imagine any God having planned such a horrible scenario. I dismiss the whole religion because I don't believe in a God who would do such a horrible thing on purpose.

The second is the matter of "innocence" or its lack, of Jesus and of us.

This is of paramount importance in Christianity. Jesus had to be the perfect unblemished "Sacrificial Lamb of God" in order to qualify for being able to give his life for all of humanity. Otherwise all the soldiers, police, firefighters, paramedics, etc., would qualify for being willing to make the same sacrifice as Jesus. But they all need to be disqualified for not being pure enough. They are not "Innocent" and therefore even though they are willing to give their lives to save others they don't qualify. This is yet another reason why Christianity needs for ever single mortal human to be guilty of sin and deserving of eternal damnation.

And of course Jesus actually deserved heaven because he was totally free of any and all sin. Of course, I have always held that if Jesus was God incarnate then for him to be sin free will be no big deal. If sin is what God hates and cannot even look upon, then how in the world could God sin?

In fact, the very idea that Jesus could have failed makes no sense. If Jesus failed, then God would have failed. So Jesus could not possibly have failed if God's mission was to send Jesus to save mankind from damnation. Jesus could not fail. That option could not have been open to him lest God himself would have failed. And this is especially true if Jesus was somehow God incarnate, or even part of a divine Trinity.

So a Jesus who can't fail and who could not sin wouldn't be impressive.

This whole religious paradigm has so many self-contradictory problems.

Now only could Jesus not have failed, and was ultimately given the reward of saints instead of the having paid the wages of sin, but the whole idea that this all had to be done to pacify the creator God is also problematic.

Who was Jesus sacrificed TO? Not for, but to? Supposedly he was sacrificed for humans to save them from damnation. But why was this sacrificed required. Who demanded this sacrifice? It couldn't have been Satan. That would require that Satan was such a threat to God that God has no choice but to sacrifice his only begotten son (or himself) to Satan to appease Satan. That makes no sense at all. Therefore the only entity that could have demanded this sacrifice would need to be God himself to appease his own wrath. And that then becomes either sadism or masochism depending on whether you want to think of Jesus as the demigod Son of God, or an incarnation of God himself.

This whole religious paradigm is nothing if not a can of worms of self-contradictions.

I'm glad this topic is "Though Experiment" because as far as I can see when we stop and try to make sense of this paradigm it doesn't make any sense at all.

For me the only rational conclusion is that these religious stories necessarily need to be nothing more than the superstitious imagination of men. I can't see how any supreme being or God could have created such a scenario. This whole ordeal makes absolutely no sense.

And I didn't even get into the problems with forgiving horrible criminals of their sins while condemning fairly decent people for merely not believing in this religion.

Giving horrible criminals amnesty by grace is not "justice". It's the antithesis of justice.

And condemning fairly decent people for merely not believing such an outrageous and self-contradictory story is hardly justice either.

So where is there any justice in this religion? It's simply not there. This religion isn't about morality at all. It has become a religion that is based entirely on "belief".

Believe in Jesus and you will be saved, fail to believe and you'll be damned. Never mind morality or justice or anything like that.

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.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

See. This religion tosses morality right out the window. It's all about acknowledging that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Anything short of this is grounds for damnation. Condemnation by the religious cult itself.

This works well for a religious cult that is trying to control people with a fear that they will be damned if they fail to support the dogma of the cult. But it makes absolutely no sense at all in terms of a supposedly righteous God who genuinely cares about morality or justice.

Having Jesus die to pay for the sins of the immoral is hardly "justice".

And then condemning all those who don't believe in these totally unverifiable tales would be the antithesis of "justice".

In short, Christianity cannot possibly be true. Jesus cannot be the only begotten Son of God who was sent to be the ransom for humanity. A ransom paid to who? Satan? Or to God himself. Neither makes any sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Christ's death was torture, I've never heard any Christian say we deserve to be tortured or even that we deserve to be killed. The ransom isn't about murder or torture, and it certainly isn'the about getting what we deserve. The ransom is about sacrifice: the giving of one life to save another.

Surely even someone that rejects Jesus' sacrifice and the notion of God sending his son to die for mankind, can grasp the idea of someone willing to die so that someone they love can live. Of taking the place of a captive so that the captive can go free. Of paying a "ransom" for hostages so they can be liberated. Of saying "take me" so that your children are not taken. I think even an atheist can grasp the idea of being willing to walk through fire for someone they love

The torture part was Satan's own particular sadistic addition to the mix. Did Jesus know this would happen? Yes, so much more his bravery. Did God know his son would be tortured, yes! So much more the love.

More painful than being tortured is seeing someone you love being tortured.

More painful than seeing someone you love being tortured is knowing that there would be those that would be totally unappreciative of the sacrifice

Why did Jesus die EXPLAINED



[youtube][/youtube]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Surely even someone that rejects Jesus' sacrifice and the notion of God sending his son to die for mankind, can grasp the idea of someone willing to die so that someone they love can live. Of taking the place of a captive so that the captive can go free. Of paying a "ransom" for hostages so they can be liberated. Of saying "take me" so that your children are not taken. I think even an atheist can grasp the idea of being willing to walk through fire for someone they love

Yes, I for one understand the concept. I understand it when the person offering their life does so knowing that they honestly don't have any other way to rectify the situation.
According to the Bible, God is able to teleport people, make them appear in places they couldn't honestly get to via vehicle, or have them walk through walls.
So if I was a captive in a hostage situation, and Jesus walked through walls and said to the gunman "Let Rikuo go, keep me in his place", I'd have to wonder just why the heck Jesus doesn't just let ME walk through the walls or teleport me out of the room. The gunman would also be wondering just how sincere Jesus's offer is, since clearly Jesus has shown the ability to leave whenever he wants.

Since I'm a gamer, I like to use this analogy. Let's say I'm playing a shooter game online. My buddy Jake steps in front of my character and takes a bullet meant for me. Ah, wasn't that sweet of Jake?
Oh hang on...there he is. He respawned. He took the bullet in full knowledge he'd be back in the game within a short time.
I don't think much of what Jake did. All it cost him was a lesser kill/death ratio score and a few moments of downtime while he waited to respawn.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Surely even someone that rejects Jesus' sacrifice and the notion of God sending his son to die for mankind, can grasp the idea of someone willing to die so that someone they love can live. Of taking the place of a captive so that the captive can go free. Of paying a "ransom" for hostages so they can be liberated. Of saying "take me" so that your children are not taken. I think even an atheist can grasp the idea of being willing to walk through fire for someone they love

Yes, I for one understand the concept. I understand it when the person offering their life does so knowing that they honestly don't have any other way to rectify the situation.

Exactly!

This is what Christians don't seem to understand at all. There is absolutely no reason why an omnipotent God should need to make such a desperate sacrifice.

That can only mean that God had no choice in the matter. He was totally incapable of doing any better.

Comparing Jesus' supposed sacrifice to save mankind with the sacrifice of a solider, police, fireman, paramedic, etc., makes no sense. Because in all those cases these mortal humans simply can't do any better. If they could save people without having to risk their own life they would certainly chose to do that instead.

So the idea that we can understand why as supposedly omnipotent God would need to pay a ransom to anyone, or make any kind of desperate sacrifice makes no sense at all.

Who would God need to pay a ransom to? Satan? If so that would suggest that Satan is a real threat to God and that God had to jump through hoops to appease Satan. So that can never be made to work.

So why would God need to make this sacrifice? To himself? That's worse yet. That would imply that God himself is such an extreme sadist that he can't be appeased until he see someone hurt. And in this case he is being appeased by seeing a totally innocent demigod hurt, or even more absurd, seeing himself hurt, which would be some kind of seriously sick masochism.

The idea that an omnipotent God would need to make a sacrifice of any kind makes absolutely no sense at all. To compare it with a human giving their life to save another is an extremely bad and failed analogy, because that analogy demands that God is just as helpless as a human in being able to do any better.

That scenario also demands that God is up against forces that he cannot control and must appease.

So Jehovah's Witness is dead wrong in suggesting that it should be easy for anyone to understand why a supposedly omnipotent God would need to be as helpless as a mere mortal human.

That's absurd. The mere fact that Jehovah's Witness accepts such a clearly faulty explanation only shows that it wasn't given much thought.

We can't have an omnipotent God who is supposedly the creator of everything bending over backwards making desperate sacrifices to pay a ransom to anyone or for any reason.

So no, Jehovah's Witness, it's not understandable why an omnipotent God would need to be so extremely desperate and inept. There is no excuse for an omnipotent God to have to make such a desperate sacrifice to save humanity from his very own wrath.

This religion is nonsense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by rikuoamero]

THE RANSOM: WAS THERE ANOTHER WAY?

Some have argued that the ransom was an unnessary sacrifice since God could have simply ignored his own law and wiped out the consequences of Adam's sin. But is this reasonable?

There is no doubt that God could have done that, He is after all the Almighty and so can do anything; the real question then is ...

- would doing so have been the right thing to do?
- would it have resulted in mankind's lasting benefits or harm?

THE ROCK AND THE HARD PLACE

When Adam sinned without having had children, God's purpose seemed to be in jeopardy; God had publicly* announced his purpose that Adams descendents fill the earth but now mankind's Father Adam stood condemned. If he was allowed to have children, they would inherit his sinful condition and die, if he was executed before having children God would have failed in his purpose and evil would have conquered good.

* According to scripture God had created hundreds of millions, perhaps many billions of intelligent spirit creatures, also called "sons of God" who were observing the events.

This was no mere exercise in saving face, if confidence in the Supreme ruler of the universe was thus undermined further rebellion would no doubt be inevitable among the perhaps billons of God's spirit son observing the proceedings. After all if one cannot trust God, we are on our own... lack ofor respect for authority leads to anarchy and anarchy leads to suffering. Further, since Jehovah, the omnipotent God had permitted evil to conquer good once, upon what basis could he legitimately deny it in the future. The permission of evil is a synonymous with suffering, to allow good to be surpassed by evil for the sake of avoiding the consequences of judgement could only lead to unending suffering.

Of course he could kill everyone, including all his innocent angels, and start again, but that would make him a mass murdered and little better than the rebels he was judging. And wiping everyone's memory clean so it was all his own dirty little secret would would also compromise his integrity. ... and how to respond honestly to any questions from'his new angels and the new humans about the past? Program everone, human or spirit not to ask about certain things and and He would have robbed them of their automany and free will, making him God of robots but incapable of being God of all. If wiping the slate clean and starting again would mean corruption which leads to suffering, what about just negating the consequences of the crime.

LAW MUST BE RESPECT

Imagine driving if nobody respected the traffic Laws? How safe would you feel? What if a judge never imposed any penalties because he didn't want the family of offenders to suffer? Would the world be a better safer place if pedophiles and murders did not do time because they were also fathers nd the chief bread winners? Who suffers when law is not respected? If God had ignored or negated the consequences of Adam's sin the result long term would have been catastrophic for humanity.


CONCLUSION When Adam sinned, God was faced with personally endorsing corruption and being responsible for the suffering that entailed, ignoring the law and undermining the pillars upon which all stable societies function and thus introducing permanent and universal suffering that way, or respecting his law and and standards, but having to watch seeing Adam's human children suffer until wickedness and corruption eventually won out and humans wiped themselves out altogether.

In all the scenarios there is suffering but by not compromising his righteous principles, the suffering doesn't risk becoming universal. Either way mankind was doomed.


Further Reading How Is Jesus Sacrifice a Ransom for Many?

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... t_index]=9



Objections
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 11#p389911

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE GARDEN OF EDEN

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by rikuoamero]

THE RANSOM: WAS THERE ANOTHER WAY?

Some have argued that the ransom was an unnessary sacrifice since God could have simply ignored his own law and wiped out the consequences of Adam’s sin. But is this reasonable?

I reject this apologetic argument because this still requires a God who is necessarily either inept or malicious.

You say that God would need to ignore his own law. But the problem is that an all-wise omniscient God wouldn't have painted himself into a corner by having made such an absurd law in the first place.

There is no excuse for this religion JW. That's just a fact of life.

There is no excuse for a supposedly all-wise all-knowing Creator God not to know how to properly create and raise humans. The idea that he would have made a law that would then ultimate paint himself into a corner where he would need to make a desperate sacrifice just to get out from under having to carry out his very own law has to be the absolute worst apologetic argument ever created.

Seriously JW. How can you not see that this religious paradigm simply cannot be made to work?

It would not be intelligent for a God to make laws that ends up having him have to make a blood sacrifice of himself, or his son, in order to pay for the crimes of a species of animals (i.e. humans) that this God himself created.

That makes absolutely no sense.

What you need to do is forget all about Jesus and Christianity entirely. Just totally forget about it and go back and start reading the Bible from Genesis. It makes no sense that a God would create humans and expect that they wouldn't fall from grace and then be surprised that they actually did fall from grace. Yet this is precisely what you must believe, otherwise God had planned out the whole thing in advance and then your excuse that God had no other way but to do the ransom thing makes no sense.

So this religion is dead in the water either way. If God didn't know that humans would fall from grace then he's not omniscient and humans shocked him by doing something that he never expected would happen. And if he did know how things would unfold then he's guilty of having planned the whole shebang in advance, and then the excuse that he couldn't have done it any other way fails.

So there's simply no way to save this religious paradigm without this God either being inept, or intentionally malicious. And neither of those are a viable argument to keep it afloat.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Most of these objections have been dealt with in previous posts which I linked to. The link is just under the picture. I'll post here again for clarity.

How could an omniscient God not have known what the bad choices his creation would make?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 314#848314

Isn't God ultimately responsible since it was He who created intelligent beings?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 875#840875

Why did God have a law in the first place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 911#389911

Was the Edenic Law absurd or unreasonable?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 066#390066

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 066#390066

Why are Adams children being punished for HIS Sin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 280#381280

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

Some have argued that the ransom was an unnessary sacrifice since God could have simply ignored his own law and wiped out the consequences of Adam’s sin. But is this reasonable?

I asked in a past thread (can't remember where) what would theists say, those theists who trumpet as good anything and everything God does, if God had just forgiven Adam and Eve right then and there in the Garden of Eden.
Unless my memory fails me (if anyone else remembers where I asked that question, I'd be grateful if they could provide a link), I remember those theists saying they'd still be here saying God can't do that, God needs a human sacrifice.
JW, did you answer that question of mine? I can't remember.

There is no doubt that God could have done that, He is after all the Almighty and so can do anything; the real question then is ...
Quote:

- would doing so have been the right thing to do?

Is it the right thing to do to blame other humans for the actions of others? To say to those other humans that they inherit a 'sin' from an ancestor, some sin apparently so grave that it needs the death of a specific human to absolve it?
JW...do YOU blame others for the actions of specific people? If a man punches you in the face, do you demand of his children and grandchildren that they pay you restitution in some way?
I don't. My older sister bullied me when we were kids, but not once have I thought of going to her son, my nephew, and saying "You owe me".

- would it have resulted in mankind's lasting benefits or harm?

Since all we have to go on are the stories in the Bible, let's try and work through it. Apparently, Eden was a paradise...with lousy security. An evil snake was able to sneak in (or was let in). And since Christians pray and hope that they'll go to heaven, or cause heaven to happen, which is basically Eden 2.0 from what I understand...

When Adam sinned without having had children, God’s purpose seemed to be in jeopardy; God had publicly* announced his purpose that Adams descendents fill the earth

[strike]I do not recall this. Where is it? It's not in Genesis, as far as I'm aware.[/strike]
EDIT - Found it. It is indeed in Genesis. I just couldn't recall at the time I wrote the part above that's stricken through. *See footnote

but now mankind's Father Adam stood condemned.

If God had pardoned him, would you be against that decision? I thought Jehovah's Witnesses praised Jehovah as Almighty God, who cannot and should not be denied.

If he was allowed to have children, they would inherit his sinful condition and die,

How? You make it sound like this would have been an inevitability, something not even God Almighty could do anything about. Is it some change in Adam's genes?

if he was executed before having children God would have failed in his purpose and evil would have conquered good.

God fails in his stated purpose with Noah's Flood and yet that doesn't stop Christians from praising God.

This was no mere exercise in saving face, if confidence in the Supreme ruler of the universe was thus undermined further rebellion would no doubt be inevitable among the perhaps billons of God’s spirit son observing the proceedings.

1) I thought God endowed us with free will. Surely he'd respect the decisions of those who no longer respect his authority. Authority comes from the governed after all.
2) This is the kind of action I'd expect from a human autocrat, who's more interested in preserving the authority of his office than in forgiveness or justice. If this really is Almighty God you're talking about and this is the kind of example he sets, then NO-ONE should be pardoned of a crime. Ever.

After all if one cannot trust God, we are on our own

Given the picture you paint of the God you worship, I'd argue we should be on our own. Apparently your God is so tied to his godly throne that he can't even forgive our proto-ancestors. Apparently your God can't be seen showing compassion.

lack ofor respect for authority leads to anarchy and anarchy leads to suffering.

If authority cracks down on every mis-deed 100% of the time, without offering compassion here and there, it's tyranny plain and simple.

Further, since Jehovah, the omnipotent God had permitted evil to conquer good once, upon what basis could he legitimately deny it in the future.

You and your fellow Christians have boxed your God into this corner, with your insistence that the Bible paints a (more or less) accurate picture of him.
If it turns out there is a real God but Genesis and the other books of the Bible have nothing to do with him...well then my arguments here do not apply to that God.

The permission of evil is a synonymous with suffering, to allow good to be surpassed by evil for the sake of avoiding the consequences of judgement could only lead to unending suffering.

And what do you call pronouncing guilt upon descendants of a man who ate an apple he was told not to eat, and that apparently the only acceptable way for those people to repent is to have a specific man nailed to a piece of wood?

Of course he could kill everyone, including all his innocent angels, and start again, but that would make him a mass murdered and little better than the rebels he was judging.

blink Who said that? Who's arguing that with Adam and Eve, he should wipe everyone out (including the angels?)

And wiping everyone's memory clean so it was all his own dirty little secret would would also compromise his integrity

From my point of view, his integrity is already compromised. Apparently me and you inherit the guilt of a proto-ancestor and have to pay for it, with Jesus paying it on our behalf.

Program everone, human or spirit not to ask about certain things and and He would have robbed them of their automany and free will, making him God of robots but incapable of being God of all.

Here you're arguing in favour of free will, that God respects it...but answer me this?
What is the 'crime' that Adam and Eve are guilty of?
If I recall correctly, it's something to do with being told not to do a certain thing, and yet they do it anyway.
In other words, they used the free will you argue God values so much, and yet were smacked down for it. Not only them, but you, I and every other human.

LAW MUST BE RESPECT

Where's the respect in pronouncing unborn descendants guilty of a crime their ancestors did? Where's the respect for their free will?
Respect is a two way street.

What if a judge never imposed any penalties because he didn't want the family of offenders to suffer?

Is this what you think us atheists are arguing? That God shouldn't enforce ANY law? Not impose ANY penalty?
Ever?

I've got news for you JW, but that is far from what I and others argue. We argue against what we see as an unjust law, an unjust penalty. We argue against having the descendants of a criminal inherit that criminal's guilt, telling them they have to pay some great price for it, and that the only way for that price to be paid is for apparently the only innocent person in all of human history to be nailed to a piece of wood.

Would the world be a better safer place if pedophiles and murders did not do time because they were also fathers nd the chief bread winners?

I would be surprised at you equating a couple of humans eating a piece of fruit with murder and pedophilia, but from earlier discussions on this board, it's clear how JWs view not obeying God.
It's apparently the worst thing one can do.

Who suffers when law is not respected?

Imagine in a human court system in some country somewhere, a law demanded that a woman be punished for having sex with men not her husband. Imagine if it became known that the men she had sex with were actually a gang of rapists who forced themselves on her.
Looks to me like the law there is causing plenty of suffering.

If God had ignored or negated the consequences of Adam’s sin the result long term would have been catastrophic for humanity.

Says who?

CONCLUSION When Adam sinned, God was faced with personally endorsing corruption and being responsible for the suffering that entailed, ignoring the law and undermining the pillars upon which all stable societies function and thus introducing permanent and universal suffering that way,

From WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... 8de26394e7
The president also granted a commutation to Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican independence activist who was a member of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, a terrorist organization that killed and wounded people in the 1970s and 1980s with bomb attacks.
That refers to Obama in his last days in office.
When he granted that pardon among others, did he do what you say above? Endorse corruption, become responsible for the suffering of others, ignore the law, and undermine US society?

I think not. The press can't sing Obama's praises highly enough.

or respecting his law and and standards, but having to watch seeing Adam’s human children suffer until wickedness and corruption eventually won out and humans wiped themselves out altogether.

Again, this is the rock and hard place you and other Christians have put your God in, by insisting that the Bible is a more or less accurate description of what happened in the past, what God is like etc.

In all the scenarios there is suffering but by not compromising his righteous principles, the suffering doesn't risk becoming universal. Either way mankind was doomed.

So what happens now that Jesus has supposedly paid the price?

FOOTNOTE
A thought occurs. Apparently God's wish is that humans spread all over the Earth and rule over it. Okay...thing is, Genesis is pretty clear that there is Eden, which is a garden, within Earth. As in, there's Eden and then there's the wider Earth.
It can indeed be argued that God intended to kick out Adam and Eve all along, that the whole eat-the-fruit thing was a setup. After all, the fruit grants knowledge of what is good and evil, the tree is planted smack dab in the center of the garden with nothing to prevent unruly humans from getting to it, a snake who whispers temptation into unwitting ears is somehow present and the God who supposedly knows all and sees all goes for a stroll elsewhere and is conveniently surprised when he comes back.