Loving Rascal

God may want to forgive people directly. However, God's attribute of justice would hinder him. First, God's justice cannot grant forgiveness without punishing sins. Second, suppose God forgives humans directly without retribution. In that case, he must also forgive fallen angels (devils and demons) if and when they seek his forgiveness. In his omniscience, God knows that the devil will never seek forgiveness. Still, God's justice mandates him to grant a similar free will (like human free will) to the devil so that no one can accuse God of injustice. So how can God punish the devil and simultaneously rescue sinful humanity from condemnation?    It would be possible if the holy God (constrains himself and) incarnates as a human to take the punishment for the sins of humans (and not of angels since he is not an angel) on himself. Thereby he could declare people who would trust in his sacrifice forgiven. The following are the main three reasons why God cannot forgive people...

Some people think God predetermined Jesus’ death in the sense that he chose to die for our sins as if it were his desire. Of course, in God’s plan, God did predetermine every event in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. It was not accidental, nor was it something God knew would happen but could not prevent. God did determine each event and persons involved in the cross event beforehand.    However, did Jesus desire this painful method for people’s emancipation? No. Therefore, he prayed, “If you can, take this cup of suffering away from me.” So how do we understand this phenomenon of God predetermining his death yet not choosing it? We can compare this scenario with drinking a bitter medicine for the only cure. Rarely would anybody desire this option if another less painful alternative is available.    Nevertheless, if this is the only possible way, they will still choose it with the better end result in mind. Similarly, God had no other option left to simultaneously...

Some of you may have read my paper on the hyperboles of Jesus in The Sermon on the Mount. In this writing, we will discuss the implication of considering the hyperboles in the Sermon as hyperboles and not as commands we must obey. Some people who continue sinning after believing in Christ tend to argue in the following manner to evade responsibility for their sins. They say, “We may be homosexuals, but you are also an adulterer.” Then, you will reply, “We do not do adultery.” They will say, “Have you not read The Sermon on the Mount? Even if you look at a woman lustfully, it is equivalent to adultery.” Thus, they equate their homosexuality with your lustful eyes to evade responsibility for their sins.    Well, how do you respond to such an argument? First, we must understand a misleading interpretation of The Sermon on the Mount. It goes like this, “We all are sinners. We sin differently. Some may look at women lustfully. Others may get angry and use abusive language occasiona...