Originally Posted by Tusk Barnes

Greetings, humans.

My name is Tusk Barnes, as you might have guessed. I have not been a member of this, or any, forum for a very long time. Some of you might recognize me from the "Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?" thread, but most of you are probably meeting me for the first time. I realized recently that it might seem that I kind of popped in here out of the blue, so I thought it best to introduce myself.

I would like to thank most of you for making me feel more than welcome in a website like this.

Yes, I am an atheist and an ex-christian, but I assure you I am friendly. I have not been "fallen from grace" for very long, in comparison to the rest of my young life. I understand that there are plenty of negative connotations that come along with an admission such as this. I know that in my own time of faith to the Cross, I was led to believe that atheists were destined for the flames save without the grace of a God they do not acknowledge. I know many of you on this forum may also feel this way, but I am not worried. I only want to introduce and explain myself. Don't expect (or worry about) any preaching from me. I am here to learn and discuss. I am here to teach and be taught. I am here to encourage and enlighten. I am here to be enlightened and encouraged...not unlike yourselves.

All that my atheism means is that I lack a belief in a god or God or gods. That's it. I do not claim there is no God. It is actually a little different from that. When a theist tells me "There is a God," I simply don't believe it. Not because I think the theist is blatently lying to me, but because I find the statement unbelievable. The implications of this realization in my life were earth-shattering, and the adjustment has not been easy, but it has been amazing.

I have enjoyed the discussions shared on the thread I've most avidly participated in, and I look forward to getting to know as many of you as possible in the near and far future.

Again, I appreciate you all making me feel so welcome, where so many others have failed. Any and all questions are welcome.

I'm glad your experiences here have been mostly good :)

Originally Posted by Tusk Barnes

Interesting proposal. How exactly can one be a Christian without God, if in order to be a Christian you must "believe that God sent His only Son to die, etc?" And I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly, so tell me if I'm wrong, but does "you cannot have God without Christianity" sort of run along the lines of there only being one way, one truth, and one life? Is that kind of what your getting at?

How many "christains" do you know? Think about it, do you think because one claims to be a christain or practices only at times christianity that they have God.. Even the jews practiced christianity, but when god sent his only Son, they denied Him, and not being able to see the Son of god for what He was, the Savoir, They also were blind in Knowing and seeing God the Father..

I was going to try to touch on this after an earlier post here, but the poster said he didn't want to hear from me anymore because he got bored. Haha. When dealing with a perfect being, He cannot be considered perfect if He is in want. Perfection means without deficiency. He can't desire anything. He's already got everything, right? Wanting is something that humans do. Coveting is something that humans do. I would not expect a perfect, sovereign, and self-sufficient being to act so human as to want.

And I understand what you're saying by, "God never had to offer us salvation," but He also never had to place such an exorbitantly high price for violating a Law which He knew from the beginning we would be incapable of obeying. He could have avoided sacrificing Himself all along if He were just willing to forgive us for acting like...well, humans.

You state to me that "God cannot want"? Why cannot a perfect spirit want? To want is not sin, it is not a sin to want salvation for the lost, to want the sick and hurting to be healed.. God "wants" of us because He gave us the choice to believe or not.. So think about this.. If He made us believe, then he would not want for our salvation.. It would already be.. But since He allowed us free will and choice, Is it not so that he would be of want, because it is us whom choice, and he would have to want, because He isn't controlling this decision, we are? !

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

Then by your own words you are undoubtedly wrong about ever having a relationship with Jesus meaning you were never a christian in a true sense but rather only had a religious experience. Tis a huge difference. Now you can go on arguing and stay in denial, thats your choice, but remember this forum is called TalkJesus so if your not here to talk about Jesus in a positive light and attitude I suggest that you move on.

Jesus is not only the only begotten Son of God, He is the only way to God, and this is by God's own design. As far as proof goes, I met Jesus personally many years ago and in turn He introduced me to His Father and HolySpirit. I have spent many many hours from day-to-day with them since and there are many on this site who have similar experiences as mine. I am a witness to Christ and whether you believe it or not has no effect on me or others it simply delays your own encounter with the King of Kings, Jesus the savior of all mankind. One day your eyes will see His glory and you will bow and confess allegiance to Him with all the rest of us.

You made the comment earlier that you are agnostic, here's something to ponder. Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? I haven't but I don't doubt their existence. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? Ever seen a live one? There is evidence of Yahveh's existence everywhere in creation.

You all are being played and baited here----The above response is more than adequate for whats going on here.

Happy

Originally Posted by Hona

Dear brother in Christ

I would not describe you as an atheist because the philosophic basis for the atheist involves a totally absurd universe. Carl Saga described the cosmos as all there is, all there was, and all there will ever be, and this statement became the flagship statement for the atheist around the world. However in the only book he ever wrote titled "Contact" which starred Jodie Foster, Sagan alludes to there having been some kind of orderer to the universe. After all Sagan was a NASA scientist who studied the cosmos and noticed that there was some kind of order in the cosmos, so much so he could send space vehicles into space and bring them back to earth again. He also drove to work and wrote ordered statements and thesis which also are only possible if there is order in the universe. Jean Paul Sartre shared this view despite making moral judgements on the world stage about the French occupation of Algeria. Anthony Flew the high priest of atheist said that atheism could no longer be considered a valid belief system because science showed us that there is order in the cosmos. These men were great atheist yet their observation of the cosmos seemed to contradict their beliefs on metaphysics at every point. Atheism after all, says that there is no order in the universe. Clearly they are wrong as I write this response to you in an ordered way so that you can read it and understand it in an ordered way.

Also it seems to me that your faith is a strong faith with all the central tenets in the right places. God makes the revelation of Himself, and the recipient of that revelation, in such a way that love and truth are possibilities for us. Ever met an atheist who hated his wife or a Muslim? These people love their wives and children as much as I the Christian does, yet there is nothing inside their system to explain to them what love is. Despite their preference of belief system, they can love their families in the same way I love mine. This is how God made everyone and so this truth is true for everyone even if they don't know. In my opinion you are not backslidden, but rather you have questions that need answers that make sense to you and everyone else as opposed to the a priori applications given by most people.

When I ask my children what love is, they go straight to Genesis 1:1 and apply the term 'Elohim", used for God which is only applied in the plural tension. In this Trinitarian concept, we have 3 distinct equal beings whose mutual reciprocal actions between themselves, represents a unity of 'thought' and 'will'. For example the Christian might say, God is love and they would be appealing to this Trinitarian concept in Genesis 1:1. How many Christian's would begin here in understanding anything about the bible? Very few indeed and so Christian's too have as many questions as the non-Christian. If Christian's struggle at this point, it follows that much that follows after will be problematic. Any belief system that attempts to begin minus a concept for thinking expressing beings like ourselves and our God, doesn't begin. Islam has a single entity deity concept. It seems an insurmountable task for Islam to exaplin how their deity could show them what love is or anything else relating to personality and its function. In essence the whole world behaves as if Christianity is true, but warrant an explanation from the Christian that makes sense to everyone and not just the Christian individual.

I wish I could go on but I have other responsibilities.

God Bless you my brother!

You sound awfully Universalist, brother. I don't have a problem with it. However misinformed you are on atheism is no big deal. I rather like the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Whether I believe it or not, IF it's true, than my sins (and yours, and everyone's) have been paid for. So I guess nobody has anything to worry about. We're all going to Heaven. God will look upon the righteous and unrighteous alike and say, "Oh yeah, I took care of that ages ago. Come on in!" Why concern ourselves with belief? If I don't believe the Union won the Civil War, does that change the fact that it did? Of course not.

If I don't believe that Jesus Christ lived, died for the sins of the world, and resurrected to conquer death, does that mean that He didn't? No...so long as He actually did. I don't have to believe a universally beneficial event actually occurred in order to reap the benefits of that universally beneficial event...assuming, of course, that it actually did happen. Everyone is saved. From Good Friday 30AD onward.

Thank you, KingdomSeeker, for such an in depth response.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

Beleif In Gods existence, mine, is I felt him. I heard him say "Come" I came to him, and surrenderd my self, and then i felt His spirit fall on me, adn enter my Body, and a great overwhelming Joy sprung up in me, and i could not stop praiseing Jesus, and God.

Alright...What did it feel like, and how did you know it was Him that you felt, and not just some horemonal chemical reaction in your brain from a "religious experience," as Jiggs likes to call it? Where did you feel it? Your chest? Your head? Under your skin? In your feet?

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

But another reason, for why i beleive(for i Believed in A God, before i truly meyt THE God) is God says he created one creature, in his Immage. and that is HumanKind. What do Humans Love to Do? Create. We HAD to have learned it from someone, Im sorry, but Animals cant create. Or none i have ever met.

I don't think I've understood this. You say you had a reason to believe in a god before you believed in THE God, but then you use THE God as your reason for believing in a god to begin with. Please, clarify.

Also, surely humans did not have to learn to create. We've been doing so for tens of thousands of years. Apes create tools. Birds create nests. Ants create intricate tunnel systems, all without having to learn how, and they've all been doing so far longer than we have. No need to apologize, just do a little more research.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

What is your belief that Jesus of Nazareth existed based upon? Well to touch on Jesus, first we have to see if Nazareth existed...Theres Lots of Talk that it Did NOT, i know it did, and the breifest and to the point explination is as follows "Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:47) characterized the site’s seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth. And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (John 19:19) – meaning that the “King of the Jews” is from “nowhere.” The early name “Nazarenes” given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) – but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah’s hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families." SO its a tiny obscure backwater town. Nazareth?

This was not exactly the foundation of my question, but now I'm curious. Why are you telling me that a city that all the record keepers make no point of ever mentioning is proof that it was a real place? Again, I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

Now evidence for Jesus? Well i could quote, the Bible, as well as MANY early Biblical scholars, but you dont beleive in God, so you may not take the bible to be valid history, and you might not trust the words of the ancient Scholars considering they are Christians...so heres two accounts from NON followers of Christ: 1.)"The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44)."

Concerning Tacitus, we must note that even if the novelistic passage in question were authentically Tacitus', it would prove nothing more than that he knew of the existence of Christians, not "Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth." Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE and wrote probably after the last of the canonical gospels (John) were in circulation.

In actuality, Tacitus, was considered a credible historian, however, this bit of writing attributed to him was NOT considered credible even by the earliest fathers and sons of the church. Here are several reasons I can say this...

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian [ca 160-ca 220 CE] was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed. [The fact that Tertullian claims Nero was the first to persecute Christians without citing the authority of Tacitus to prove this is inexplicable if the passage existed in Tertullian's day. By the time Tertullian was writing, all sorts of legends had developed.]
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by ANY Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the "Annals" existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian, the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9, It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintillian. [I have not yet tried to verify this independently. frz]
10 .The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
11. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century. [It is entirely possible that the story found in Sulpicius Severus' Chronicles 2:29 — itself apparently modeled upon the story of Galerius' burning of Nicomedia in 303 CE—served as the stimulus for a Renaissance forger to add the story to Tacitus' Annals.]
12. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertaiments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
13. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

This passage by Tacitus, like that of Josephus, is likely a forgery.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

2.)The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) Yeshu, as they call him, is mentioned...Granted they are twisted, and I find personally Blasphemous, "accounts" of his life, and death...but Historicaly...this proves Yeshua's(Jesus) existance.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. You can't use a source that you yourself have discredited as false and twisted to prove the one thing out of it that you believe is true, and expect me to believe it. You ought to use sources that you find credible, at least.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

What is you belief that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Son of God, YHWH, based upon? There are MANY Accounts of Jesus, in the New testement, and ALSO in the Old. Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs 30 mentions God has a son...its refuted to be talking about ISRAEL, the nation...but It says it, and its only thought of that by Rabbincal Jews, who Hate God anyway. (Why do i say they hate God? Well becasue they follow an "Oral Torah" that is NOT mentioned in the Tanakh...anywhere...yadayada...thats not what this is about anyway...)

Haha. Yikes, man. I guess I'm glad we don't have any Rabbinical Jews around here, or they might take offense to that. They'd probably think you were the one who hated God because you worship a man. I would like some of that OT Scripture to back up the claim that it says God has a (one) son.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

So what is My beleif, of Jesus being the Son of God, based apon, Outside of the Scriptures? The fact that No one outside of Christianity, truly beleives in Jesus, either deity wise, or just plain factualy. and furthermore, most of the ones that DO claim him. Dissobey him left and right. They do NOT live by the words of the Bible. Yet still calim to Love God, adn Jesus. SO if you have the World denying Jesus in word and action. And you have the majority of the Self proclaimed Church, accepting him in word, yet denying him in Action, That seems to me, that there is an opposing force.

And this opposing force is Jesus, the Son of God? How? Why?

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

ALL religions came from sumer,Babylon.

This is so false, it hurts. I would go into your religious references, but I probably wouldn't be able to do it in a kind way. I apologize.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

Why did Jesus have to die? God IS Love, and it is His WILL that no man should perish. God is ALSO Holy. and WILL NOT accept Sin.

We already have a word for God, then. It's love. What do we need God for? And if it's His will that no man should perish, then why do men perish? Are we humans capable of trumping God's will? And if He will not accept sin, then why did He accept the one who became sin (Who was actually Himself) as a viable sacrifice for all mankind? Also, how do you deal with Satan visiting God in the Book of Job. He didn't seem to have too much of a problem being in the presence of sin then.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

Sin Entered the World through Adams disobedience. Romans 5:12 "Therefore as by one man sin entered into this world [sin entered into the world], and by sin death, and so death passed forth into all men, in which man all men sinned."

I don't know how to best put this. There really probably was no Adam, man. Evolution has proven true with no yet known exceptions. Man and woman did not suddenly magically appear on this planet. They evolved. Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and the original sin story is, at best, allegorical. Sin didn't come from one man. If you'd like me to assume that the Genesis story is factual, I would be glad to, but there is still a whole heapin' helping of poor judgment and false justice going on. The whole tale is a witch's brew.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

HumanKind needed a perfect Sacrafice for Sin. In the OT, Men would sacrifice innocent lambs, showing their repentance from sin and faith in the future Sacrifice from God who would bear their penalty.

OK. Two questions here. What does it say about God that He demands the slaughter of innocents to appease Him? How is He any different from the Volcano gods who demand virgin sacrifices. What exactly is the moral lesson being taught when you teach your worshipers that they can simply cast their wrongdoings onto the hide of another creature...Another man, in Christianity's case? I don't get it, but it seems so so wrong.

Second question. You say that God bore the penalty in order to create the new covenant...but He created the penalty too, right? So...God payed Himself for a price He had previously been charging us, which He knew we couldn't pay ourselves. Why didn't He just make the price more reasonable to begin with, and avoid the whole brutal sacrifice thing. It doesn't seem loving...It seems convoluted.

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

So in order to Save ALL mankind, Jesus, the perfect Sacrafice(also the perfect High Priest) had to Die, in essence, Gods living Word, his powerful wisdom, which is an entity in and of its self, yet still fully God, Humbled its self, and came down so you can be WITH God. Jesus Christ IS the only way, Truth and LIFE. and NO man comes to GOD but through THE WAY. And No unclean can come through this Holy Highway.

ALL Mankind? Does that mean I'm saved too? Jesus died for me?

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

So...Thats why Jesus Had to Die. Yet He did not stay Dead, God Rose him to Life,

God rose Himself to life. Again, this sacrifice doesn't seem that impressive. Jesus, being God, knew He would die. But He also knew that He wouldn't be staying dead. He knew He was all powerful, and He knew that He couldn't be destroyed or defiled. So what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

How do you have a personal relationship with a person who might have died almost 2000 years ago? Well If you beleive the account of the Bible, and the Words of The risen Christ...He Is NOT Dead, but ALive, and sitting at the right hand of the Father.

So did He die? How is He alive if He died? If you die...you're dead...that's it, game over. That's what I don't get.





I really do appreciate your answers, but I think they've just spurred more questions.

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

My personal experiences with Him.

OK. How do you know that these personal experiences are with Him, and not just one of those religious experiences you accuse me of having?

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

When you refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" I assume you mean Jesus in the flesh. My belief is based on the historical writings about Him.

I was not aware that Flesh Jesus and Spirit Jesus were mutually exclusive. I thought Jesus meant Jesus. And what historical writings are you referring to?

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

My personal experiences with Him and the fact that His Father Yahveh and HolySpirit bear witness of Him(Jesus).

How can I know if I've also experienced these things?

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

Jesus didn't have to die. He did however choose to be obedient to His Father Yahveh and die in His fleshly body so that all things would be reconciled back to Yahveh through Jesus the Christ as according to Yahveh's plan.

You mean He chose to be obedient to Himself? And when you say "all things" does that include me?

Originally Posted by jiggyfly

I don't, but I do have a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ who died in His fleshly body as recorded in several historical writings on a cross and then was raised from death and is now living and lives within every believer who has experienced what commonly called born again but more accurately referred to as born of the Spirit and is a supernatural phenomenon.



By the power of Yahveh through HolySpirit, again, tis a supernatural phenomenon.

I'd still like to also read these historical texts. And I might need you to explain what supernatural means.

Originally Posted by kyval82

You state to me that "God cannot want"? Why cannot a perfect spirit want? To want is not sin, it is not a sin to want salvation for the lost, to want the sick and hurting to be healed.. God "wants" of us because He gave us the choice to believe or not..

I suggest that a perfect, self-sufficient, sovereign being cannot be in want, because that would be a contradiction of those characteristics.

Perfection implies a lack of deficiency. Want or desire implies that there is something you don't already have...a deficiency.

Self-sufficiency implies that all He could ever possibly need, want, desire, etc. is found in Himself...giving Him no need for worship, no need for praise, no need for sacrifice from anyone else. Being in want, means that there something He cannot provide for Himself, and must rely on other means to attain it...thus not self-sufficient.

Sovereignty implies supreme power and authority, leaving no room for questions. If there weren't any room for questions there would be no room for doubt. And yet, there are billions who doubt...mostly because this supreme authority has not done a very good job of itself apparent to the globe.

Originally Posted by kyval82

So think about this.. If He made us believe, then he would not want for our salvation.. It would already be.. But since He allowed us free will and choice, Is it not so that he would be of want, because it is us whom choice, and he would have to want, because He isn't controlling this decision, we are?!

Ok, ok. So if He gave us the choice, then why does He get so upset when we choose incorrectly. Why does He expect us to act like Him, when He created us to be humans? If He gave us free will, that was a gamble on His part. Although, it could hardly be called a gamble, since He already knew what the outcome would be...And yet, even though He made this choice to give us a choice, knowing that an overwhelming majority of us would not choose Him, He wants to penalize us?

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by happyharold4

You all are being played and baited here----The above response is more than adequate for whats going on here.

Happy

You give me too much credit and your friends not enough.

Don't you think if I were baiting and playing them they'd know it? Don't you think I'd know it? And when you say "more than adequate," what do you mean?

Originally Posted by Tusk Barnes

I suggest that a perfect, self-sufficient, sovereign being cannot be in want, because that would be a contradiction of those characteristics.

Perfection implies a lack of deficiency. Want or desire implies that there is something you don't already have...a deficiency.

Self-sufficiency implies that all He could ever possibly need, want, desire, etc. is found in Himself...giving Him no need for worship, no need for praise, no need for sacrifice from anyone else. Being in want, means that there something He cannot provide for Himself, and must rely on other means to attain it...thus not self-sufficient.

Sovereignty implies supreme power and authority, leaving no room for questions. If there weren't any room for questions there would be no room for doubt. And yet, there are billions who doubt...mostly because this supreme authority has not done a very good job of itself apparent to the globe.

Alas.. I am yet to understand how want is a sin, imperfection, flaw, blemish or any of the above.



Ok, ok. So if He gave us the choice, then why does He get so upset when we choose incorrectly. Why does He expect us to act like Him, when He created us to be humans? If He gave us free will, that was a gamble on His part. Although, it could hardly be called a gamble, since He already knew what the outcome would be...And yet, even though He made this choice to give us a choice, knowing that an overwhelming majority of us would not choose Him, He wants to penalize us?

I don't get it.

If you gave your only son.. to DIE on a cross.. to save the lives of others, and then they chose not to take that gift.. you would be angry too right! If you knew they were headed straight for hell fire and you had warned them, yet they would not head, then I believe anyone would be upset by that decision

Originally Posted by kyval82

Alas.. I am yet to understand how want is a sin, imperfection, flaw, blemish or any of the above.

I never suggested it was a sin to want. I merely suggested that, as Perfection and self-sufficiency are defined as "without deficiency," to want or desire or demand or long for ANYTHING implies a lack. You can't want anything if you already have everything. It implies a deficiency. If something is self-sufficient and perfect (without deficiency), as God is, then that means it cannot possibly want, desire, demand or long for anything. If He's truly perfect and self-sufficient, then He's already got everything. He lacks nothing. Therefore, there exists no thing which He does not have. He can't possibly want anything else without ceasing to be perfect or self-sufficient. He would cease to be perfect and self-sufficient because He wants something that He does not already have...a deficiency. Something He relies on others to give Him (i.e. Worship, praise, sacrifice).

I don't know how to put it any more simply. Sorry if this isn't clear.

Originally Posted by kyval82

If you gave your only son.. to DIE on a cross.. to save the lives of others, and then they chose not to take that gift.. you would be angry too right! If you knew they were headed straight for hell fire and you had warned them, yet they would not head, then I believe anyone would be upset by that decision

First off, if this gift were truly free, you wouldn't have to accept it. You would just have it. God created Hell and gave us an ultimatum. "Take this gift, or I'll burn you forever." God has no reason to be upset at us for exercising the free will He gave us, even if He doesn't like the outcome.

It's extremely shortsighted on His part to get upset over something He had the foresight to see and the power to alter before He started the universe. Threatening me for not choosing to transfer my offenses to His Son's hide shows a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a father in the first place.