Jesus died to save us, to redeem us, because the law requires it. To allow siners to live in sin is cruel. To ignore their sin condones it. The death of Jesus satisfies the law of God and demonstrates the love of God. Both are necessary to redeem sinners from sin, self, and Satan.

When one questions the validity of interpreting past events and discerning causal relationships between them, that is questioning hindsight. "Hind" = back, "sight" = looking -> looking back to understand what happened and why it did. I thought this was obvious. Perhaps I assumed too much. If you don't see it, the problem is not language.

Anyway, the idea that all causes must be presented before the effects occur for the causal relationship to be valid, is ridiculous. And your inability to present a logical defense of why that should be, rather than the usual vague ad-hominem comments, is telling of the strength of the argument. It reeks of a lawyer-like attitude of gathering as many arguments as possible, no matter how specious, in the attempt to come to the desired conclusion.

I prefer the more judge-like attitude of gathering all sound arguments, and only sound arguments, and coming to the logical conclusion, regardless of what one desires. As my fraternity's motto says, veritas omnia vincit - truth conquers all.

Asygo, your attempts are brilliance darken the night sky. You are much too concrete in your thinking. The issue before us concerns claims of association. You keep regressing to the facts of association. Let me break it down for you. Let us consider that I go to visit my brother and on my arrival his neighbor decides to give him his used lawnmower. The facts are clear. After I arrived the gift was given. No one can deny that. But, what can I claim? Can I claim that I went to visit my brother so he could receive the gift of a lawnmower? Yes, I can. Nothing prevents me from making the claim. But how valid is the claim? To prove the validity of the claim I would have to establish that the link between my arrival and the gift had been made BEFORE I left to visit my brother.

Darius

Will someone show me from the law where it requires that Jesus had to die? I am getting a bit tired from reading unsubstantiated claims that have no standing in reason or logic.

Rosangela, if where she was was not important the text would not go to such lengths to ensure that we realize she had not been created when the command was given. Those who truly follow the Bible need to pay careful attention to how it was written.

Your quote of Mark 10:45 makes the false assumption that "to give his life" means "to die." It could just as easily mean "to live out His life." Jesus' final summary of His mission indicates that it is the latter that is meant.

Darius, I thought you were banned from posting on MSDAOL? Your unwillingness to embrace the most basic Christian beliefs is wearisome. Why not question the existence of God and be done with it?

I find Darius a bit critical at times, but he's asking good questions.

How convincing..... not. Ad hominem. Useful for a lawyer, not for a judge.



I prefer the concreteness of building on the Rock, rather than shifting sand.



There is no dichotomy.



That's all good. Causality cannot be proved simply by a temporal relationship. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common mistake.



This is where you make your mistake. Causality cannot be disproved simply by a temporal relationship.

Consider this possibility: A week after your arrival and the lawnmower's arrival, the neighbor comes for a visit. He then reveals to you that he was waiting for your arrival to give the lawnmower. He then tells you some previously unknown story to explain why that was the case. You now have causality proven after the fact.

God is well able to do the same thing. He could explain why Jesus had to die long after the death happened.

Be careful not to limit what God can do by what you can understand. That would leave you with a rather small God.

Asygo, God's omnipotence does not give you license to attribute whatever you desire to Him. In your version of my analogy the neighbor tells me of how he was waiting for my arrival for him to make the gift. You have no such revelation from God. (Unless you think you are God.)

Even if she hadn't yet been created when the command was given (which I don't think is the case), she was informed of God's prohibition, as she herself made clear to Satan (Gen. 3:2,3).


What about John 10:15-18, then? "And I lay down my life for the sheep. ... For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."