Even pagans like Aristotle were able to figure out that for justice to be justice it had to be proportional. So it is not surprising that Christianity picked up Aristotle's teachings on justice and incorporated them into its teachings.

That the divine penalty for murder is the same as for pilfering a dime defies reason and makes God look like a raging, irrational maniac.

This sort of theology which defies reason so devoutly and so ruthlessly produces many more atheists than it does Christians.

"For the wages of sin is death..." --Romans 6.23

"...and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.  Do not err, my beloved brethren." --James 1.15~16

These two verses, among others, describe the sentence for sin.  This is what I believe:  unrepentant sin on the day of judgment (Rev. 20.11~15) will bring about a sentence of death. 

Good thing to know that Jesus Christ completely saves.....

Do you think that, when it comes to sin, the judgment is the same regardless of the sin? Or is there less punishment for small sins than for big sins, similar to the structure of our own legal system?

You're right that death is the result of sin but there are also different judgments. In the O.T. some sins were punishable by death and some weren't. In the N.T., blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is worse than other sins. It's unforgivable. And on judgment day, God will judge each person according to what they have done individually.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - I think it will matter on judgment day the severity of sins committed. Everyone will not be judged the same. The severity of judgment will be according to what they have done. But if you're only referring to death, then yes, everyone will die.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - There's a LOT I could say to that. *chuckles* And I know you know that's true.
But I think the thing we can both agree on is that blind faith is not the way to go. Even God doesn't call us to blind faith. Perhaps you already knew that little bit, but if not, rest easy knowing that's the truth.
Tell me, is there ANYTHING I can try to help clarify further? Things you've always been confused about in all your time being a Christian and after? I know I can't make you believe, nor would I try, but if I can help you come to a point where you feel, finally, that God really is real, I want to help.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - If God doesn't want blind faith, why is religious belief of any kind so unreasonable and lacking in evidence?

Faith by definition is to accept something without evidence.

Faith, like scepticism, is amoral. There is no merit if belief without evidence. It is merely credulity.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - Thanks! That is why God told us that His will for us is Sanctification, and Jesus told us that the pure will see God, it is so that sin and death can be overcome in Christ Jesus.  Sort of begs the sentence, "woe to those who turn their backs on God's sanctification". 

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - Your first point, that the universe is complex, is given. That proves nothing but that the universe is complex.

Your second point, that there are historical accuracies in the biblical text, is also given, but it proves nothing spiritual. That there is such a place as Arabia and cities called Medina and Mecca and there probably was a man named Mahomet, does not mean that he was the prophet of God.  That there was a man who is reported to have said something, does not mean that he did actually say what he is reported to have said and even if he did say those things that what he said was true. I am assuming that you do not believe the veracity of the Quoran. Plenty of "footprints in the sand" exist for Mahomet.

Your third point, that in ancient times people were given something to verify their faith, is besides the point and of no use to us.  What people may or may not experience is subjective and is hearsay to others.

Regarding faith, you seem to be advocating that because people have faith, that proves that the object of that faith exists. The Greeks had faith in Zeus. Does that mean that Zeus exists? And shall I mention children and Father Christmas?

I don't deny God or that certain possible even probable historical figures said and believed things about themselves or others. I merely hold that the evidence offered to support their assertions is insufficient to say the least.

Actually, an "assumption" that if something "cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted" is not that "it must not be real" but that it cannot be verified, which is another thing entirely.

christianity is founded upon lies -

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm)

@Composer - To that effect, there is an error in the reasoning. A lack of works does not, in of itself, prove that one such as Jesus never existed. It only prove that He never wrote anything, Himself. But the sheer number of testimonies - accurate, complimentary testimonies at that - sheds some serious light on the claims made being authentic.

The reason that there were no sculptures or drawings, etc, is because Jesus' ministry had nothing to do with His looks, but upon who He is. Even the Bible says that Jesus had no particular features that made Him stand out. He was just another "average Joe" in that regard.
Suffice to say, a lack of evidence does not mean a lack of truth.

@dustysojourner@xanga - Your last paragraph there truly hammers home the point. There are two applications to the consequences of sin. And we have to understand in what ways those consequences are applied. One is measured in legality - namely in a social setting, as here on Earth - and the other in comparison - are we perfect like God? The difference is important and I have noticed that the Church, itself, doesn't seem to recognize this distinction.

@Composer - Tell ya what, I'll get back to you when you actually care to argue LOGIC rather than denying even the simplest of reasonable explanations. You don't even know how to consider the Bible's evidence on its own terms. So, there's no point in arguing with you. You've already made up your own mind.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga -

All you actually did was to show that you have no evidence regarding the spiritual statements of the bible.

Your example of mundane history falls flat because it  is continuously being revised according to new evidence. And as a whole, historical figures are not claiming they are God or have messages from God. Where they do make such claims, the fact that they probably did exist and that have followers who believe it, does not make they claim true. I gave an example of Mahomet who seems to fit all your criteria and yet you ignored that.

Testimonials are subjective to the person making the testimonial, as I said but you seem to have ignored as you have most if not all of my previous response.to your points.

"Simply put" as you say, there is no evidence to support the spiritual notions exclaimed in scripture. Indeed, there is controversial debate amongst believers as to what the words actually mean almost everywhere in the bible.

Your "basic examples" were indeed "easy". Easy to reject. Historical context is relevant to spiritual claims. That should be obvious and I said it previously. 

At least you seem to have somewhat toned down your adolescent arrogance of having the "obvious" truth of spiritual matters.

You stressed the need for faith and I hold that faith is not a virtue but an amoral stand. Indeed, without evidence, it is closer to being immoral rather than moral. Insisting on faith without evidence is an argument from ignorance and is best avoided by those seeking truth on any matter, spiritual or mundane. Where there is insufficient or no evidence, the most moral position, because it is true, is to say "I don't know!"

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - I found your original tone one of arrogance but lets push that aside as irrelevant. My own tone can be off-putting at times as well.

Historical evidence means that the bible as with the quoran records historical data. Irrelevant to any spiritual truth that may be contained in either work. Any "credibility" warranting "further investigation" holds for both. Have you ever studied the quoran with an open mind as you seem to demand in regard to the bible?

What "spiritual evidence " have you to offer? Whatever it is, as with my own, it is subjective. As I said, to others it is hearsay.

The "500+" testimonials is a report by another party that they exist. That will not hold water in an open court, especially when said testimonials are nowhere to be seen. It really does not matter how many people are reported to have experienced something. To the observer, it is hearsay.

The four gospels are also hearsay, written decades after the events portrayed and not exactly the same. Admittedly, the notion that they reflect different perspectives is a valid one.

I have pointed out how your historical evidence is irrelevant to any spiritual truths and gave an example of another such holy work with similar claims that I assume you reject but ignored in my comments. That is the contemptable reason you give for not sharing your spiritual "evidence". I can only assume your "evidence" is a reiteration of dogma.

You are again offensive in that you are prejudicial as well as arrogant this time. Just because I reject your repetitive weak arguments in support of your certainty on spiritual matters drawn from an anthology based on hearsay, does not mean that one rejects spiritual matters per se, but that is your conclusion. It is not my fault if you are unable to explain yourself convincingly, as your refusal to supply the "spiritual evidence" shows.