Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

by Greatest I am Thu May 10, 2012 4:17 pm

First topic message reminder :

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Tue May 15, 2012 8:23 pm

RoC quote. perhaps Solomon was the instrument of God’s vengeance

Quite possibly.
My problem with the text 'vengeance is mine..........' are the times it is used to excuse a person not taking action to rebuke wrongdoing.
'Let God deal with it'. Instead of dealing with the problem oneself, or as a church group.

by Greatest I am Wed May 16, 2012 1:52 am

oftenwrong wrote:Jean-Paul Sartre's Huis-clos (No Exit), contains the famous line "L'enfer, c'est les autres," usually translated as "Hell is other people."

Closer than the twisted Christian view.

Regards
DL

by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 6:10 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
My problem with the text 'vengeance is mine..........' are the times it is used to excuse a person not taking action to rebuke wrongdoing.

That’s exactly what it is, an excuse, and an excuse not supportable by the text.

trevorw2539 wrote:
'Let God deal with it'. Instead of dealing with the problem oneself, or as a church group.

God “deals with it” through his ministers, his “revengers”, as explained in Romands 13. The excusers who misuse “vengeance is mine” seem to forget the second portion of the text. “‘Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord, ‘I will repay.’”

Here’s one of God’s stated methods of repayment.

… if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger (avenger) to execute wrath upon the one that does evil.

from Romans 13:1-4

by trevorw2539 Wed May 16, 2012 10:30 am

RoC quote.
God “deals with it” through his ministers, his “revengers”, as explained in Romands 13. The excusers who misuse “vengeance is mine” seem to forget the second portion of the text. “‘Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord, ‘I will repay.

I do not subscribe to the belief that God is in control of every part of a Christians life, or even of Church life. He has given Christians a standard to live by, and a brain to use. I live my own life, make my own decisions guided by Christian standards.

Likewise you know my feelings on Romans 13. Roman Magistrates were appointed by Rome. They should be obeyed (Paul) simply because they were the authorities of the Roman Empire. Why would God ordain that pagan god worshipping Romans should rulers over God's own people. After all, look at God's attitude to pagan god's of the OT, and NT.
That same Roman Empire would massacre 1000s of Jews a few years later.

The Jews were a free Jewish kingdom under the Maccabees/Hasmoneans. They even restored Temple worship.

Then the Romans moved in. Did God ordain this?

Obey those who have the rule over you if they are the rightful legal rulers.

by polyglide Wed May 16, 2012 11:46 am

Whilst those who believe in God should take account of all that creation involves, I feel that the times and actions prior to the arrival of Jesus and the recording of the history prior to that time, should be considered in the circumstances prevailing at that time and not under the present circumstances.

My belief is based on the promises as made by God at the time of the arrival of Jesus and the purpose for which he allowed his son to become a means of salvation to those who believe,

I feel God made it clear that everything else prior to that time was irrelevant
to what would happen in the future.

On that basis I do not worry about anything that happened prior to the time Jesus arrived.

by trevorw2539 Wed May 16, 2012 12:49 pm

Polyglide quote.
I feel God made it clear that everything else prior to that time was irrelevant
to what would happen in the future.

On that basis I do not worry about anything that happened prior to the time Jesus arrived.

Strange that Jesus used the OT/Jewish history often, using parables the people would understand from their religious (OT) teachings.
The Good Samaritan. Jeremiah, Micah and Ezekiel
The Vineyard. Song from Isaiah.
The Good Samaritan. From their history. When the Jews were exiled to Babylon, and Samaria was occupied by foreigners who took on a form of Judaism, but were never accepted by the Jews when they returned to Palestine.
Jesus often referred to the OT and 'commended' much of its teaching.

In simple terms. We are what we are today because of yesterday. The future is 'moulded' by what we do today.

by Greatest I am Wed May 16, 2012 3:46 pm

polyglide wrote:Whilst those who believe in God should take account of all that creation involves, I feel that the times and actions prior to the arrival of Jesus and the recording of the history prior to that time, should be considered in the circumstances prevailing at that time and not under the present circumstances.

My belief is based on the promises as made by God at the time of the arrival of Jesus and the purpose for which he allowed his son to become a means of salvation to those who believe,

I feel God made it clear that everything else prior to that time was irrelevant
to what would happen in the future.

On that basis I do not worry about anything that happened prior to the time Jesus arrived.

Yet Jesus argued for the veracity of the O T against Moses and his changing God's law on divorce.

God himself said that none of his edicts were ever to change.

Of course anyone with half a brain would change his immoral edicts.

Then again, Jesus did add to God's laws himself. No consistency in those who put words in archetypal Jesus' mouth.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Wed May 16, 2012 6:28 pm

Greatest quote
Yet Jesus argued for the veracity of the O T against Moses and his changing God's law on divorce.

Please could explain 'God's laws on divorce'. Thanks

by Greatest I am Wed May 16, 2012 7:50 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Greatest quote
Yet Jesus argued for the veracity of the O T against Moses and his changing God's law on divorce.

Please could explain 'God's laws on divorce'. Thanks

Let no man put asunder.

Moses changed it and allowed it for men who had a wife who shared her charms.
This was not offered to women of course.
Can't have equality of the sexes in Christianity. Man is to rule over women.

Even today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA

I am not saying I agree with God's rather stupid rule. I definitely do not. It would be immoral if in place.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Wed May 16, 2012 9:04 pm

Greatest quote. Let no man put asunder.

Thanks.
Just a thought. The words you quote are from Matthew 19 where Christ uses the words from the story of the garden of Eden.
The problem is that these words are recorded as spoken by ADAM, not God. It is not until 1500 years later that we learn from Jesus that these are God's wishes. There is no statute, as far as I am aware, in the OT for 'no divorce'.
The writers of most of the OT books seem to recognise the ideal of one man/one woman for life, but it is not statutory.

Therefore Moses could not change God's 'no-divorce' law as it was not known.

We look back with hindsight. Moses did not have that chance.

by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 10:55 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC quote.
God “deals with it” through his ministers, his “revengers”, as explained in Romands 13. The excusers who misuse “vengeance is mine” seem to forget the second portion of the text. “‘Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord, ‘I will repay.

I do not subscribe to the belief that God is in control of every part of a Christians life, or even of Church life. He has given Christians a standard to live by, and a brain to use. I live my own life, make my own decisions guided by Christian standards.

This is exactly what God’s Word teaches. We are created into freedom to choose God or not God. We are charged by God to use our God-ordained choice to choose God’s standard as the standard by which we live.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Likewise you know my feelings on Romans 13. Roman Magistrates were appointed by Rome. They should be obeyed (Paul) simply because they were the authorities of the Roman Empire.

This does not confirm to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-4.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Why would God ordain that pagan god worshipping Romans should rulers over God's own people.

God does not.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Then the Romans moved in. Did God ordain this?

Unanswerable without delving deeply into the context of “the fullness of time.” Let me know if you want to go there.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Obey those who have the rule over you if they are the rightful legal rulers.

Who are the “rightful legal rulers?”

For rulers are not a cause of terror for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for he is the minister of God to you for good.

from Romans 13:1-4

The “rightful legal rulers” (your term) are those who “are not a cause of terror for good behavior, but for evil” from whom “you will have praise” as you “[do] what is good” (Paul’s terms).

Does that sound like Roman authorities?

by polyglide Thu May 17, 2012 4:10 pm

As I have said previously, as far as I am concerned nothing prior to Jesus arriving is applicable today. those involved in those times will be dealt with according to Gods will.

Although God referred to those times it was usually to point out the lack of compliance to the way of life that would be of benifit to the human race as a whole and it would be in their best interests to change their ways.

At all times you have to take into consideration that it is man who actually put the words on paper and not God, the only actual writing God has done is the Ten Commandments.

And what a wonderful world it would be if we all followed them.

by astra Thu May 17, 2012 7:44 pm

As I have said previously, as far as I am concerned nothing prior to Jesus arriving is applicable today. those involved in those times will be dealt with according to Gods will.

Yeah Yeah Yeah very pious of you, I'm sure.

Have a happy "Thor's day!!

Someone is keeping the old guys in reserve, just in case, AND on Both sides of the Atlantic! Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Thu May 17, 2012 7:54 pm

Polyglide quote

Although God referred to those times it was usually to point out the lack of compliance to the way of life that would be of benifit to the human race as a whole and it would be in their best interests to change their ways.

On the contrary. Jesus used the OT as his 'birth certificate' referring to it often to 'prove' his claim as to who he was. He uses it, as I have already said, to explain his message in language and passages they understood from the OT. To Jesus it was important, why not to you?
In it are many proverbs which are just as applicable today as then. Many teachings likewise.
The NT was written by men. Do you take that into consideration when you read it? Including the errors made by the writers?

Eight of the 10 commandments were already written down in earlier civilisations and copied by the OT writers. The first 2 were the only 'new' ones.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 17, 2012 7:57 pm

ASTRA QUOTE. Someone is keeping the old guys in reserve, just in case, AND on Both sides of the Atlantic.
Am I one of the old boys? Were you expecting us (myself or RoC) to reply to Polyglide? Very Happy

by Greatest I am Thu May 17, 2012 10:02 pm

polyglide wrote:As I have said previously, as far as I am concerned nothing prior to Jesus arriving is applicable today. those involved in those times will be dealt with according to Gods will.

Although God referred to those times it was usually to point out the lack of compliance to the way of life that would be of benifit to the human race as a whole and it would be in their best interests to change their ways.

At all times you have to take into consideration that it is man who actually put the words on paper and not God, the only actual writing God has done is the Ten Commandments.

And what a wonderful world it would be if we all followed them.

Why does an Omnimax God need humans to reproduce? confused

Omnipotent except for reproduction is a limit for an limmitless God. Embarassed

How droll.

Regards
DL

by astra Thu May 17, 2012 10:20 pm

The OLD Guys I was thinking of was Thor Odin and their pals Laughing

Hello Trevor, I find it curious that the Gods in use at the time of (and before) the Roman Conquest (of England) are still in use and remembered in the names given to days of the week.
I would have thought that the so pious Bible thumpers and God Botherers in the Bible Belt of USA would be demanding a change of name for the days of the week, as the Saxons, Vikings Angles, Gauls, Druids ("Pagans" one and all) did not once bother the North American native peoples.

by oftenwrong Thu May 17, 2012 10:52 pm

astra wrote:....change of name for the days of the week....

In Portuguese the decision is made for you. Sunday is called First day, Monday is Second day etc., etc.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 17, 2012 11:08 pm

astra wrote:The OLD Guys I was thinking of was Thor Odin and their pals

Hello Trevor, I find it curious that the Gods in use at the time of (and before) the Roman Conquest (of England) are still in use and remembered in the names given to days of the week.
I would have thought that the so pious Bible thumpers and God Botherers in the Bible Belt of USA would be demanding a change of name for the days of the week, as the Saxons, Vikings Angles, Gauls, Druids ("Pagans" one and all) did not once bother the North American native peoples.

Now that's a thought. I might write to one of the Pastors over there and suggest it. I'm sure I can find a verse somewhere in the Bible to justify it. Smile

Hang on a minute though. We might end up with Abrahamday, Mosesday, Melchizedecday or even Resurrectionday. Shocked

Forget it. silent

by astra Fri May 18, 2012 1:09 pm

Tee Hee!

As long as it is ONLY the Americans who are to suffer the indignity! Twisted Evil

by polyglide Fri May 18, 2012 5:24 pm

I have just had a little ramble through the comments regarding this matter and just thought what would be the consequences of everyone knowing they would not be punished for any actions they carried out and they would be forgiven and let off scott free.

by astra Fri May 18, 2012 5:38 pm

It is "Scot Free" after David the First's capture and ransom after the Battle of Nevilles Cross. The ransom was never paid, hence 'scot free' I always wonder what the intrest would be on that amount after 800 years!

The answer to your question would surely be along the lines of - Viking raids all over the country!!

ALWAYS REMEMBER CHILDREN - rape, pillage THEN burn.

by Guest Fri May 18, 2012 6:43 pm

Once again, the question…

Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Once again…

“Vengeance is mine, and retribution, their foot shall slip in due time, for the day of their calamity is near, and the impending things are hastening upon them.”

Deuteronomy 32:35

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Romans 12:19

… there is no authority except from God, and the powers that be are ordained of God.

… if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger (avenger) to execute wrath upon the one that does evil.

from Romans 13:1-4

… the answer is “No.”

by astra Fri May 18, 2012 7:05 pm

All very honourable RoB

It is when the Politicians, Judges, Lawers etc get involved that the waters get muddied! If those locusts did their bit for NO pay, we would see a much different world

by trevorw2539 Fri May 18, 2012 8:09 pm

astra wrote:All very honourable RoB

It is when the Politicians, Judges, Lawers etc get involved that the waters get muddied! If those locusts did their bit for NO pay, we would see a much different world

We certainly would. There would be no Polticians, Judges, Lawyers. They would all be earning a living elsewhere.

The Government are proposing that Barristers bid for the right to conduct certain cases. Presumably the cheapest bid will win the right. Justice on the cheap.

by astra Fri May 18, 2012 8:29 pm

Barristers, Lawyers, Vets, have had it their own way for far far too long!

It is unfortunate and inapropriate, that Doctors in the UK can now add themselves to the list

by trevorw2539 Fri May 18, 2012 9:14 pm

astra wrote:Barristers, Lawyers, Vets, have had it their own way for far far too long!

It is unfortunate and inapropriate, that Doctors in the UK can now add themselves to the list

On the contrary, Lawyers and Barristers 'have it the Laws way'. Most of their work is done within laws and guidelines laid down by Parliament.

by astra Fri May 18, 2012 10:11 pm

AND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .most of those in parliament and the lords are from a 'legal' background!

What was Tory Bliar before being PM?

by polyglide Sat May 19, 2012 11:49 am

I feel the most important aspect of this thread is, what did God mean by sin.

Sin is usually associated with morals rather than crime.

Did God intend to include crime?

I think within this there may be a deeper meaning, do not forget man and not God wrote the script.

Did God mean to clarify, do unto others etc; or we should not take revenge etc; and accept that none of us is perfect.

by trevorw2539 Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm

astra wrote:AND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .most of those in parliament and the lords are from a 'legal' background!

What was Tory Bliar before being PM?

?????

by astra Sat May 19, 2012 4:05 pm

A Barrister at law

politicians are failed church men - just listen to Blair since he went "Godly"!

by trevorw2539 Sat May 19, 2012 5:07 pm

astra wrote:A Barrister at law

politicians are failed church men - just listen to Blair since he went "Godly"!

Astra. Thanks. I was actually querying the underlined. I knew about Blair and I'm afraid I never trusted him after he 'cuddled up' to Bush and took us to war.

I believe there are more 'failed' financiers in Parliament than the legal profession, which is/was about 11% approx. about 2 years ago. Not sure since last election.
However with that amount of the legal knowledge available you'd think new laws should not need testing in the courts Laughing

by astra Sat May 19, 2012 5:13 pm

They DO have to play with us, they think it justifies their "position"

Only 'position' I would have them is kneeling over the Headsman's block!! Twisted Evil

by trevorw2539 Sat May 19, 2012 5:47 pm

astra wrote:They DO have to play with us, they think it justifies their "position"

Only 'position' I would have them is kneeling over the Headsman's block!!

Er. They would have to change the law first. Do you think they would agree?

by astra Sat May 19, 2012 6:43 pm

No stomach these days for the Seige Warefare and the Lynch Mob!

Pity.

by Sponsored content

Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?

Re: Is Jesus forgiving sin unjust to the victim?