Is there any sense in the core message of the Gospel?

[McCulloch]

As far as I know, this one passage is central to most, if not all, of the Christian gospel.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?

Why is it that God cannot avert his own wrath without sacrificing his only begotten Son? Why could he not just forgive without the sacrifice?

Why is belief necessary? Why couldn't God just forgive?

[AB]

If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?

How can he have more people saved when those people reject Him?

Why is it that God cannot avert his own wrath without sacrificing his only begotten Son? Why could he not just forgive without the sacrifice?

Evaulating God from your basis is irrelevant.

Why is belief necessary? Why couldn't God just forgive?

He did. Jesus.

[Confused]

As far as I know, this one passage is central to most, if not all, of the Christian gospel.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?

Why is it that God cannot avert his own wrath without sacrificing his only begotten Son? Why could he not just forgive without the sacrifice?

Why is belief necessary? Why couldn't God just forgive?

Boy, can you pick them or what??

1) If god existed, I think he would have picked a better plan. Why punish many generations for the sins of their great great great great great grandmother. We shouldn't need salvation if we didn't commit the original offense and we shouldn't have to pay the price for someone elses screw up.

2) God didn't really sacrifice his only begotten son. God was Christ. Unless his conversion to man negated his knowledge of why he was born man, then there was no sacrifice. God knew he couldn't die, so anything is tolerable as man when you know that it is short lived and you can exact revenge later on. If his knowlege was negated by the conversion from god to man, then he negated christs free will to choose to be a sacrifice. Had Christ chosen not to sacrifice, god would no longer exist. And if the conversion negated previous knowledge of his god status, then how could he preach what no one else knew to teach him to begin with. See where I am going with this.

3) I wouldn't have a problem with belief, if you could just tell me what exactly I was suppost to believe and prove to me the belief was right. But if what is preached is right, then a little part of god was placed in each one of us at birth, so we should all be able to believe from the get go right? See where I am going with this. We can't believe when no one really knows what to believe in. In why is it necessary for him to forgive my ancient relatives sins in order for me to gain access to his heaven?

A final answer to the subject, no there is no sense in the core message of the gospel.

[Confused]

If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?

How can he have more people saved when those people reject Him?

Why is it that God cannot avert his own wrath without sacrificing his only begotten Son? Why could he not just forgive without the sacrifice?

Evaulating God from your basis is irrelevant.

Why is belief necessary? Why couldn't God just forgive?

He did. Jesus.

I am trying to make sense of this. How can we reject what we dont' know? How can he save us if we don't know we are lost? If god doesn't want man to evaluate him, then he shouldn't have given us rational thought. God didn't just forgive, he supposedly sacrificed himself (christ) to forgive, how this is relevant to forgiveness I dont know.

[AB]

If god doesn't want man to evaluate him, then he shouldn't have given us rational thought.

God doesn't want man to evaluate him? Really?

[Confused]

If god doesn't want man to evaluate him, then he shouldn't have given us rational thought.

God doesn't want man to evaluate him? Really?

That was how I interpreted your statement of "evaluating god from your basis is irrelevant".

[Goat]

If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?

How can he have more people saved when those people reject Him?

Why is it that God cannot avert his own wrath without sacrificing his only begotten Son? Why could he not just forgive without the sacrifice?

Evaulating God from your basis is irrelevant.

Why is belief necessary? Why couldn't God just forgive?

He did. Jesus.

Why is "Jesus" needed for god to forgive?

[McCulloch]

Let me explain one of my points with an analogy.

Lotteries make money. They do this by receiving more money in ticket sales than they pay out in prizes. So, in the long run, if you play lotteries, your expected winnings will always be less than the amount that you spend. This is elementary common sense and a little statistical probability. The same thing can be said for bingo, casinos and other games of chance where betting is involved. Over the long run, the house wins.

Rational reasonable people understand this. They might get some amusement at the thought of winning and might spend money on such games, as a form of entertainment. But rational people never spend more on gambling than they can afford to lose.

But some people gamble too much. They choose to ignore rational limits. They believe that they can beat the odds. There is no rational basis for this belief.

If you were to argue that God did not want us to gamble, and as an argument for this show that the evidence (casinos making money) and reason (laws of probability) support this conclusion, then you might have a case. After all, all reasonable people avoid gambling or limit their gambling to what they might otherwise spend on other forms of entertainment.

But Christians posit that eternal salvation is to be gained not by the majority or by rational logic. God's grace, in the way that it is to be given only to the faithful minority, defies the claim that God so loved the world. If he really does not want any to perish, then he would have made the plan of salvation more accessible to reason and logic and only those who deliberately refuse to be rational, like the compulsive gambler, would miss out. To do so would not go against the concept of free will. Even with suitable levels of evidence, some people will still reject truth.

[McCulloch]

Evaulating God from your basis is irrelevant.

I do not evaluate God. I do not know that there is a God. What I know is that there is a collection of writings which Christians claim is from God. I evaluate that claim and find it lacking.

[Confused]

Let me explain one of my points with an analogy.

Lotteries make money. They do this by receiving more money in ticket sales than they pay out in prizes. So, in the long run, if you play lotteries, your expected winnings will always be less than the amount that you spend. This is elementary common sense and a little statistical probability. The same thing can be said for bingo, casinos and other games of chance where betting is involved. Over the long run, the house wins.

Rational reasonable people understand this. They might get some amusement at the thought of winning and might spend money on such games, as a form of entertainment. But rational people never spend more on gambling than they can afford to lose.

But some people gamble too much. They choose to ignore rational limits. They believe that they can beat the odds. There is no rational basis for this belief.

If you were to argue that God did not want us to gamble, and as an argument for this show that the evidence (casinos making money) and reason (laws of probability) support this conclusion, then you might have a case. After all, all reasonable people avoid gambling or limit their gambling to what they might otherwise spend on other forms of entertainment.

But Christians posit that eternal salvation is to be gained not by the majority or by rational logic. God's grace, in the way that it is to be given only to the faithful minority, defies the claim that God so loved the world. If he really does not want any to perish, then he would have made the plan of salvation more accessible to reason and logic and only those who deliberately refuse to be rational, like the compulsive gambler, would miss out. To do so would not go against the concept of free will. Even with suitable levels of evidence, some people will still reject truth.

You know I hate analogies. I understand your logic but in the form of his core message, there is no logic. If this entity were to exist, why would he say he loved mankind so much he gave his only begotten son (himself) so that whoever beleived in in won't perish, but have eternal life? What he is really saying is he gave the illusion of sufferance as man, died under the pretense of cleansing mans sins, then threatened that if you don't believe in hime, you perish. Confliction???