The second is the one that I think is holds more water and that is that the death of jesus was not necessary, but innevitable, as his teachings were against those of the time and challenged the power structure. In a sense jesus was going to die, but it is not his death, but his life that saves us. What he teaches us that is more important, then that his blood was ever spilt.

Then you aren’t really talking about “salvation from sin” and getting into heaven, in the conventional sense.

How does he hold us accountable if he dosen’t cause our suffering? I don’t think that innaction and action are the same thing. If you are dealing with a friend who is a drug addict, you may allow him to suffer when you practice the necessary type of “tough love”, which many people have to practice. Only his choices can save him from the addiction, in the end he has to choose to get help, whether you try to help him with an intervention or not it is still his choice in the end. If you want to bring other people into the picture too, say your friend then goes out and stabs someone in a drugged craze, or in trying to get money to feed their addiction, then are you responsible for that persons death, because you didn’t let your friend live in your appartment and snort cocaine all day. I think you also imply that the death of Jesus ties in with original sin, but not all christians believe in original sin. there are two lines of thought that I have heard of for such christians, the first is that Jesus’ death was neccessary to save people who are sinners, and that people become sinners later on in life. The second is the one that I think is holds more water and that is that the death of jesus was not necessary, but innevitable, as his teachings were against those of the time and challenged the power structure. In a sense jesus was going to die, but it is not his death, but his life that saves us. What he teaches us that is more important, then that his blood was ever spilt.

when you talk about sin you may be thinking of the kind of sin that many fundamentalists think exists “just because,” things like homosexuality and birth control.

You’re the one who said, “If god was evil he would not have done anything by grace to save us at all from our sins and allow us to enter the kingdom of heaven.” I used the term “state of sin”. In any case, I assume you were referring to substitutionary atonement; it would be difficult to read that sentence and not think that’s what you meant. However, you then go on to say, “In the end god simply wants us to not harm one another and to do good to each other.” In that case, why the necessity of Jesus? You seem to be saying two different things.

As for the rest – that really has nothing to do with salvation. You’re arguing for the existence of a god who doesn’t get involved enough to prevent suffering, but does get involved enough to “save us… from our sins”. My point is merely that He creates us as vulnerable creatures, then holds us accountable for it.

when you talk about sin you may be thinking of the kind of sin that many fundamentalists think exists “just because,” things like homosexuality and birth control. I don’t believe these are sins, and I think you would agree God or no it is certainly evil to cause harm to another human being these are certainly sins. In the end god simply wants us to not harm one another and to do good to eachother. As for your other points you seem to be saying you don’t want to exist, and if you don’t wish to be alive and blame god for it, then that is certainly a quite suicidal view that you are entitled too. If you want to really live as a human being though who has feelings emotions and the free thought we are all enjoying expressing here, then how can you expect god to solve all your problems for you, then for what purpose would you have thought?

well than why not look past the terms, and look at what I’m saying about the arguments being made. I did’nt mean to offend you by using terms, but I saw others using terms like God and angels to describe versions of christian theology and I thought that it would be ok for me to use terms that I use to describe my beliefs too. If you want fact in a religious disscussion you wont find it. Faith is necessary for any belief involving the existence of God, since he cannot be proven or disproven, and faith in the end is illogical and devoid of fact. I don’t see the harm in believing in god if he cannot be proven or dissproven. There is an old hebrew saying that says “it is better to believe in a god and find out that there isn’t one than to not believe in a god and find out that there is one.”

No, thanks.

“. . . a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”