Have you read any of the great Christian classics, such as the Divine Comedy, The Brother's Karamazov, Dostoevsky's other work, Augustine's Confessions, Charles Dickens, The Viper's Tangle, etc.? Do you think these reflect the view you are putting forth?

A great many theologians would say that it is a grave mistake and egregious misreading to frame the Christian vision of salvation in terms of avoiding extrinsic punishment and gaining extrinsic reward. That's sort of the opposite of the point in texts such as the Commedia, The Mind's Journey Into God, the Ascent of Mount Carmel, etc. (e.g. texts that sort of represent the maximum pedigree within the Catholic tradition for instance).

That said, when it comes to views where God seems arbitrary and inscrutable (which do exist), I am not sure how much this really differs that much from fairly popular and influential forms of "secular" philosophical anthropology and ethics, nor from a view of nature as an inscrutable, inchoate "brute fact." Anti-realism doesn't really tend to address the issue of arbitrariness and inscrutability, it simply democratizes it. Yet to my mind, it's unclear how this makes it any less absurd. Indeed, there is a quite influential tradition that looks precisely at this sort of absurdity for its starting point. I am reminded here of Nietzsche's reading of Hamlet in the Birth of Tragedy, that action itself simply comes to seem absurd and demeaning.

All in all, I think I would accept the Penal substitution theory except for the part where God gives himself for the redemption of mankind. That was supposed to be God on the cross. God is the one who was demanding punishment for original sin (which was basically a matter of eating fruit from a particular tree.)

Maybe on some readings that are both literalist and based on a sort of volanturist, divine command theory, which reduces the Fall entirely to the sin of "disobedience" (and makes morality writ large wholly a question of obedience and duty). But such theologies are distinctly modern, with the fundamentalist offshoots largely taking root in the 20th century, and yet your OP is about what "Christians" believe generally, and points to the Roman Catholic Church.

Summing up what Christians believe about Christ's mission in a sentence is a bit like claiming to be able to express "what philosophers think about ethics," or "the meaning of life," with similar brevity. There are many theories of the atonement, and they aren't "stand-alone," since an understanding of the Fall, man, the Imago Dei, etc. are all relevant.

Wikipedia is a fairly terrible resource here BTW. One could come away thinking most of the Church Fathers held to a "ransom theory," in the sense that Satan, almost co-equal with God, is the hinge point of the Incarnation, which would be a rather horrendous misreading, or that "Sin" and "Death" represent a sort of polytheistic pantheon of evil gods who need to be paid off. In reality, Patristic theories tend to be simultaneously "healing/therapy" theories, recapitulation/typographic theories, ransom theories, and moral exemplar theories—i.e., something much more akin to the modern "kaleidoscope view."

If you're interested, a classic treatment of this (although Western) is Gustaf Aulén's Christus Victor, which can be found free online since it's quite old. If you're just interested in Evangelical theories, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views is from a good series of comparative essays. Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views, is also relevant, and a bit more diverse, including a Catholic and Orthodox view. Or, my personal favorite, Jean-Claude Larchet's, Therapy of Spiritual Illnesses, which, while expensive, has been read for free on YouTube, Spotify, etc. (the quality isn't great, but the guy does a lot of great stuff). Orthodox Psychotherapy by Hierotheos Vlachos is a bit shorter and also good.

It's worth noting though that the sort of extreme volanturism that makes all of ethics and Goodness into obligation, or duty, has had an profound influence on Western thought, including contemporary athiesm. It pays to know this stuff, because even the avowedly areligious or secular are often enmeshed in systems that spring from a particular theology (Nietzsche's athiesm being a great example, in that it arguably fails to transcend the assumptions of German Protestantism). Indeed, my suspicion is that athiest critics of Christianity tend to gravitate towards attacking volanturist "command" theology not only because it is in many ways an easy target, but precisely because they understand it best because it is the tradition from which much influential athiest and secular thought emerged.

John Millbank's Social Theory and Theology or Charles Taylor's work are great examples documenting this sort of phenomenon (i.e. the way the "secular," scientific paradigms, and particularly the social sciences sprung from theological views; just consider here the switch in the early modern period to the language of "laws" and "obedience" in the physical sciences, which still dominates today). Another example comes down through Kant, and can be seen in Rawls' extremely influential elevation of right over goodness, and the fact that the good ends up being defined wholly in terms of the individual, much as if they were the image of the Reformed God.

For example, even athiests will often demand that any truly "ethical" or "moral" ought be framed always in terms of obligation, a "thou shalt," that can take the form of a "law" or "universal maxim." But this isn't so much a result of a Christian heritage, as the creation of a particular sort of modern Christianity, and it makes sense in a metaphysics of will, where God is sheer will and man created in his image (a picture that has had tremendous influence on fields like economics). Hence, I've often come across the claim from anti-realists that divine command theory is the only sort of ethics that would make sense (if God was real, but of course he isn't). But to read Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov's "if there is no God, then everything is permitted," in this light would be a radical misreading. Dostoevsky, coming out of the Eastern tradition, is concerned with intrinsic telos and a formal good that is inseparable from what man is.

As I tried to explain to @frank (but they rudely ignored it), it is because God is all-just. To forgo the repayment required for an offense is to forgo justice. Oftentimes, mercy (viz., alleviating someone’s deserved misery) is contradictory to justice (viz., upholding what is owed).

God is all-just and all-merciful, so there is a necessary synthesis of both in God. The perfect synthesis of the two for God is to forgive our sins if we are repentant (viz., so as to be merciful) as long as a proportionate price has been paid for them by a representative of the group (viz., so as to be just). In this way, the price has been paid and an alleviation of misery can be done.

Imagine that you knew someone was in debt to you so much money that they never could pay it back. You could absolve them of the debt with the snap of your fingers, but you would be being unjust: they deserve to pay that back and you deserve that money, but you are forgoing it to allow someone to be in a condition that they do not deserve out of some motive (perhaps love or kindness). In this case, you would be having mercy on them, but at the expense of being just.

If you want to be just, though, you cannot do this; but if you make them continue to be in debt (to be just) with no way out, then you are not being merciful.

So, can you be both merciful and just? Is there a way to synthesize them? Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve it (i.e., be merciful) and preserve the proper respect of desert (i.e., be just).

It's not a perfect analogy, but this is what God did.

The act of torturing yourself or others is evil. So, God of the New Testament also allowed evil for whatever reasons one can imagine. You call the reason Justice. How could a God who is Love allow Evil for Justice!? Permitting or doing evil is not allowed in Christianity. This is very similar to the God of the Old Testament, who allowed evil for Justice!

I literally responded with a philosophical account of why God had to sacrifice Himself, devoid of faith — Bob Ross

Accepting that account requires accepting that Jesus is the son of god... it's in the first sentence. That's not philosophy.

The act of torturing yourself [...] is evil. — MoK

Webster's dictionary defines "torture" as purposeful infliction of pain or suffering for no other purpose than to do so.

Reason and rationale, or intent in the legal landscape, is as wide as the days are long. Why exercise or eat healthy if we're all just going to die one day? Is that not the definition of torture for someone who holds such a view as paramount?

Me thinks you've fallen prey to the Geuttier argument. In simple terms: stupid things are not evil, they're just stupid. Meaning, while ignorance is the cause of most acts that qualify as such, at least, they ensure they won't be remedied, they're ultimately merely a catalyst to something that would fare quite well without any such factors.

Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn't — frank

:wink:

Fair. So it comes down to what you value.

:up:

On something like the satisfaction view of Saint Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, this is the general approach. I know some Catholic thinkers (e.g. D.C. Schindler) who are ambivalent about this move, seeing it as a useful corrective to overly concretized "ransom" theologies that overinflated the role of Satan, but also as the start of the move towards volanturism (although this has more to do with Anselm's bifurcation of goodness into "justice" and "benefit" in De Casu Diaboli). The fear here is that "justice" becomes a sort of arbitrary, or at least inscrutable remainder of the Good, which is not itself desirable or beneficial.

I don't think this is necessarily a problem for satisfaction atonement theology. Afterall, Plato spends much of the Republic trying to explain how justice can be sought for the sake of something else and for its own sake.

There is also debate over whether satisfaction in this form was necessary, or simply the most fitting and appropriate solution:

But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary. At the most, they are willing to admit a hypothetical or conditional necessity for the Redemption by the death of Christ. The restoration of fallen man was a work of God's free mercy and benevolence. And, even on the hypothesis that the loss was to be repaired, this might have been brought about in many and various ways. The sin might have been remitted freely, without any satisfaction at all, or some lesser satisfaction, however imperfect in itself, might have been accepted as sufficient. But on the hypothesis that God has chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm's argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Now, if justice is truly best, then a deified humanity will prefer justice to unjust benefit, so that's a wrinkle perhaps.

But, in favor of the "kaleidoscopic view:"

On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory. And in point of fact it will generally be found that the chief Fathers and Schoolmen, though they may at times lay more stress on some favourite theory of their own, do not lose sight of the other explanations.

Thus the Greek Fathers, who delight in speculating on the Mystical Redemption by the Incarnation, do not omit to speak also of our salvation by the shedding of blood. Origen, who lays most stress on the deliverance by payment of a ransom, does not forget to dwell on the need of a sacrifice for sin. St. Anselm again, in his "Meditations", supplements the teaching set forth in his "Cur Deus Homo?" Abelard, who might seem to make the Atonement consist in nothing more than the constraining example of Divine Love has spoken also of our salvation by the Sacrifice of the Cross, in passages to which his critics do not attach sufficient importance. And, as we have seen his great opponent, St. Bernard, teaches all that is really true and valuable in the theory which he condemned. Most, if not all, of these theories had perils of their own, if they were isolated and exaggerated.

The act of torturing yourself or others is evil

Christ is tortured and executed by men through their free choices. He didn't crucify or scourge himself after all.

The issue regarding the fact that Jesus didn't stay dead is dealt ... — frank

In Flannery O'Connor's novel, Wise Blood, Hazel Motes proclaims his Church Without Christ where "the dead stay dead, the lame don't walk, and the blind don't see." That's one line from a novel by a Catholic writer. Hazel Motes doesn't think he has sinned or needs salvation.

Another reference, this by Norman Greenbaum, a Jewish songwriter. In his big hit, (one big hit?) Spirit in the Sky, he sings...

Never been a sinner, I never sinned
I got a friend in Jesus
So you know that when I die
He's gonna set me up
with the spirit in the sky

I'm sure there are deep, solid theologians who also think sin and punishment are overrated, but I don't have a quick reference.

If I remember, it was St. Augustine who cooked up the theory of Adam and Eve ----> Original Sin ----> Jesus ----> the crucifixion ----> salvation. Christianity might have been better if Mr. Augustine had stayed in academia as a pagan rhetoric professor. But maybe not. Paul was big on sin and damnation too. Maybe Paul should have stayed in the tent business. But maybe not.

One can put together a decent religion by taking Jesus' commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you." to heart and skipping the rest of it.

The religion in which a person is raised (pick a religion, any religion) is likely to be 'sticky' like burrs in a dog's fur, flies on fly-paper, etc. It can be difficult to extricate one's self from it. I've spent years trying to comb out the large barbed burrs of Calvinism, the dripping glue of unavoidable sin, the various mysteries and gross contradictions of Christianity. It's not the theology that's tough; it's the emotional connections.

Trinity Sunday is not popular among preachers; explaining the trinity is worse than trying to explain quantum theory. When it comes to the 3 for 1, I'm a Unitarian. Bertrand Russel said that "Believing in transubstantiation means you are ready to believe anything." I quoted Russel to a Jesuit priest; his response was "Exactly!" I was raised a protestant and didn't have to deal with bread and wine literally becoming the body and blood of Christ.

That was the best post ever. :heart:

There are different ways to understand what is going on with the Holy Ghost/spirit. It is confusing and there seem to be more moving parts than needed. However there is a philosophical paradox at the heart of it, which it is grappling with. That God is infinite* and is creating something that is not infinite. How can he do this? And when he has done this, how does he interact with it?
The answer is through intermediaries, if we take a look at the first verse of the bible, there are some clues;

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God created heaven, (the place where God and all the angels and heavenly hosts reside).
God created the earth, (the place where humans, animals and plants etc reside)

Now heaven is an intermediary and God only resides is essence, because he is infinitely large etc. So the way I see it is that heaven is in some way a place where transcendence happens. Transcendence of God, and what God says and the hosts and angels, translate, or draw it down into something finite.

So one way of seeing it is that when we are thinking, or communicating with God, we are actually referring to one of these heavenly hosts, because God is infinitely inaccessible, removed, distant from us. We can’t even conceive of it.

This gives us the idea that God is two people, the infinite God and his representative intermediary in heaven, the Holy Ghost.

Then the third person is the Christ(Jesus), the role of Christ is to be the representative of God on earth. Now in a sense this means humanity as a whole is this representative, because humanity has access to God via the heavenly hosts(the Holy Ghost).

The reason why there is a representative on earth is to bring(create) heaven on earth. That’s why they are doing all of this. This is God’s creation, for some reason he wants to create an earth, where heaven resides.

So in order to create a heaven on an earth three parts, or people are required. God, the Holy Ghost and the christ(humanity).
These can be written in correspondences;
God————God——father——-infinity
Holy Ghost—heaven—mother——finite universe
Christ———-earth——son———-a world where infinity is present/understood(heaven on earth)

* I don’t hold with infinity per say.

It was an account through natural theology of why God would necessarily freely choose to sacrifice the Son (which doesn't necessarily have to be Jesus) and how it is out of love and not wrath. This is philosophical: it is not dependent on revealed theology.

Even if it were (as maybe I am providing why Jesus specifically had to be sacrificed), the part of the argument I gave is not a historical argument from revealed theology even if it presupposes some truths only derived from revealed theology.

E.g., I can make an philosophical argument for the metaphysics of a mind that presupposes some scientific claims which are not themselves philosophical; like so I can give an philosophical account of why Jesus would be sacrificed which presupposes Jesus was God through revealed theology which is not itself philosophical.

@frank is incapable of responding to my argument for some reason and insists that God meaninglessly sacrificed himself to himself out of wrath. It's just a shame they are unwilling to have a productive conversation.

frank is incapable of responding to my argument for some reason and insists that God meaninglessly sacrificed himself to himself out of wrath. It's just a shame they are unwilling to have a productive conversation. — Bob Ross

I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me.

Webster's dictionary defines "torture" as purposeful infliction of pain or suffering for no other purpose than to do so. — Outlander

Torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. It was common as a mode of punishment in ancient times, such as stoning.

Reason and rationale, or intent in the legal landscape, is as wide as the days are long. Why exercise or eat healthy if we're all just going to die one day? Is that not the definition of torture for someone who holds such a view as paramount?

Me thinks you've fallen prey to the Geuttier argument. In simple terms: stupid things are not evil, they're just stupid. Meaning, while ignorance is the cause of most acts that qualify as such, at least, they ensure they won't be remedied, they're ultimately merely a catalyst to something that would fare quite well without any such factors. — Outlander

I was mentioning that allowing torture/evil is wrong for whatever reason for a God who is Love. Jesus' death was a part of God's Divine Plan. So, I was wondering how God, who is Love, could have such a plan.

Torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. — MoK

So if someone killed your wife or kid or whatever, and you wanted to make them suffer. That's just magically not the definition of torture. Me thinks you're a bit spirited toward the letter of the law and not the spirit. If I may suggest such.

Christ is tortured and executed by men through their free choices. He didn't crucify or scourge himself after all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jesus could prevent such a disastrous fate! And no, Jesus' death was not the result of men practicing their free will, but their ignorance! So, God put Himself in the hands of ignorant people to achieve a part of His Divine Plan. Apparently, people could not be held responsible for their actions since they were ignorant. Of course, they wouldn't harm Jesus if they were convinced that Jesus is God! So, who could be held responsible for this situation if not God?

Apparently, God knows how to create things, and he does not need a medium. Creation could be the universe. And of course, Earth was not created but formed as a result of dust rotating around the sun.

So if someone killed your wife or kid or whatever, and you wanted to make them suffer. That's just magically not the definition of torture. — Outlander

The act of me causing suffering to the killer is a torture/evil as well.

Apparently, God knows how to create things, and he does not need a medium. Creation could be the universe. And of course, Earth was not created but formed as a result of dust rotating around the sun.

If God created the universe, then by implication, he created the earth at the same time. Because the material that formed the earth was part of that creation when he created the universe.
In the passage from the bible, “earth” means the universe.
How do you know that God knows how to create things? And how do you know he does not need a medium?

If God created the universe, then by implication, he created the earth at the same time. Because the material that formed the earth was part of that creation when he created the universe. — Punshhh

But Earth was formed way later than the creation of the universe.

In the passage from the bible, “earth” means the universe. — Punshhh

Do you mean that Earth and the universe were synonyms in ancient times?

How do you know that God knows how to create things? — Punshhh

If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

And how do you know he does not need a medium? — Punshhh

Isn't the medium itself created? If yes, then God knows how to create things.

...not the result of men practicing their free will, but their ignorance! So, God put Himself in the hands of ignorant people to achieve a part of His Divine Plan. Apparently, people could not be held responsible for their actions since they were ignorant. Of course, they wouldn't harm Jesus if they were convinced that Jesus is God! So, who could be held responsible for this situation if not God?

First, I agree, I think it's fair to point out that ignorance reduces culpability. However, isn't it fair to say that both ignorance and culpability exist on a sliding scale? Those who chose to have Jesus killed were aware of the signs and wonders. Indeed, he preforms one as he is being taken into custody.

It's clear in the text that at best, Pilate is at least aware he is about to beat and execute an innocent man. He tries to avoid this, but only to the degree that it won't inconvenience him or cost him anything. His conversation with Christ is full of rhetorical dodges, and he ultimately agrees to kill an innocent man (one who he had reason to think might be more) because it's the path of least resistance. As Jesus says, had the signs and wonders he preformed been given so Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have repented, just as the Ninevehites repented at the coming of Jonah. Consider also the number of signs and wonders Judas had seen.

So it seems fair to say that the people involved are not without any culpability. More to the point, they are not being coerced into their acts, and they have plenty of reason to think their acts are wrong even if Jesus isn't God. The relevant actions seem about as free as any human acts are. The men making them are not slaves, but men of power and status, acting to protect that power and status (and arguably, a corrupted self-serving vision of what God wants). I think it is fair to say that Jesus' ministry is not such that it "forced them to kill him," or even "tricked" or "coerced," them into doing so.

Jesus could prevent such a disastrous fate!

Sure, Jesus says as much. He could call down angels to destroy the Romans and Jews, or he could have simply cut the deal Satan wanted to make with him out in the desert and pursued temporal power and made himself emperor of Rome, and then the world instead.

The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (you can find it separate) is one of my favorite looks at Christ's decision not to rule as a sort of benevolent dictator and instead to suffer and die as a servant.

As an aside here, very early in the Inferno, Dante is led through the vestibule of Hell, where those angels and men who decided not to pick a side in life are forced to reside. Hell will not have them, for failing to enter into rebellion, and Heaven will not have them either, for failing to be loyal to the Good. Dante mentions seeing the one who "made the great refusal," which might be a few people, but I think it's most fitting if it's Pilate. At the outset then, we see Pilate, who allowed man to kill God out of indifference and self-interest, and at the very bottom we see Judas, who actively worked to betray Christ. I think this geography gets at the issue of culpability quite well.

The act of me causing suffering to the killer is a torture/evil as well. — MoK

Okay. Your basic, telling a kid fire is hot instead of momentarily putting their hand on a stove or over said fire, for example. Of course. That's right and proper. Anything else is the hallmark of a beast or savage. Understandable.

So, basically, once someone kills, say your child or mother or father or what have you, any sort of punishment is unjust simply for the fact "what's done is done." Surely you don't mean that. Do you?

Edit: Simply put, all punishment or "justice after the fact" does, not including incarceration of said individual so that they cannot further degrade society, is bring an unneeded and ill-formed sense of "justice" in the mind of the victimized, when in reality all it takes is knowledge and proficiency in understanding the nature of life as it is (perhaps forgiveness?). It doesn't bring the person back. It doesn't undo what was done. It just makes whoever was made unhappy as a result less unhappy. Usually temporarily. Which so does watching a cheap video online or a clown running up and performing a quick skit. Is that aligned to your belief or is it in opposition? If the latter, explain why.

First, I agree, I think it's fair to point out that ignorance reduces culpability. However, isn't it fair to say that both ignorance and culpability exist on a sliding scale? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The main question is why the ignorance exists. It is a part of creation for sure; otherwise, the first sin would not have taken place. Now, please tell me, who is responsible for the existence of sin, creatures or God!?

Those who chose to have Jesus killed were aware of the signs and wonders. Indeed, he preforms one as he is being taken into custody. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you think that showing a wonder is a good reason in the mind of a just being for accepting that what you say is right, then how could you resolve the problem of why Jesus was killed? Why was the judge not convinced? Either he was not a just person, which brings the ignorance within again. Or, the judge was wise and was convinced; therefore, Jesus did not die on the cross as Islam says. Which option do you pick?

How, God, could fail to leave such important ambiguity in the history of humans, His Divine plan?

Now, please tell me, who is responsible for the existence of sin, creatures or God!?

Creatures, on pretty much all mainstream accounts of the Fall.

Either he was not a just person, which brings the ignorance within again

Does it? What's the assumption here, something like:

P1. If anyone does evil, it is always because they are ignorant.
P2. If anyone is ignorant, it is always God who has made them ignorant.
C: Therefore, Christ actually killed himself when he was executed.

Would that be it?

Anyhow, it seems to me that negligence is a thing, as well as willful ignorance. There are also cases where people simply do what they know is wrong. Pilate would be an example of the latter. He knew that crucifying an innocent man was wrong, and he did it anyway. That such an act is wrong is not only consistent with the culture that produced the NT, but within the context of the Latin culture that Pilate came from as well (e.g., it would be a blameworthy act in the context of the Aeneid, which is from the same epoch).

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, had he known it was God and that he'd be punished, he wouldn't have done it, seems to me a bit like saying a serial killer was forced to kill some child, because, had they known the child was important, and that they would have been caught for the murder due to the resources deployed to catch the offender, they wouldn't have committed it, or that someone who cheats on their spouse is somehow "unfree" in choosing to cheat if they are ignorant of the fact that they will be caught cheating. Certainly, these are cases where a person knows enough to be culpable. And more to the point, they aren't being coerced into what they know to be immoral acts, they are choosing immoral acts as an expedient means of achieving ends they desire.

But Earth was formed way later than the creation of the universe.

So what, God still created it.

Do you mean that Earth and the universe were synonyms in ancient times?

Yes, they had no idea of a universe. Their universe was earth.

If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

We don’t know any of that, because the infinite God is inconceivable to us.

Isn't the medium itself created? If yes, then God knows how to create things.

As above. How do you know that God doesn’t need a medium?

Creatures, on pretty much all mainstream accounts of the Fall. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The question is why creatures are vulnerable to doing wrong/sin. They sin because they are imperfect and ignorant. We can fix ignorance through education, but we cannot do anything for imperfection. God is not vulnerable to sin since He is Perfect and All Wise. He basically cannot do wrong since doing wrong is out of question because He is all-wise. He cannot even bother with sin since He is perfect. The next question is why the perfect God didn't create a perfect God. Perhaps, God could not possibly create another God. I have no argument against or in favor of this. But if God is perfect and cannot create a perfect God, then creation is alright! I don't know what God is going to do with imperfection in us. If He could fix imperfection in us, He presumably could create a perfect Human at the first point! According to Scriptures, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but God didn't allow them to eat from the Tree of Life. If this passage is correct, then there is a question why God didn't allow them to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal as well, so they could become God. God apparently was not the only God in this scene since God mentioned that they would become like Us if they eat from the Tree of Life as well. So, why did God make an exception for them, disallowing the Tree of Life!? They could become God, and all problems would be solved. Instead, He cursed them and sent them out of Paradise. To be honest, I don't see the logic behind the Scriptures.

Does it? What's the assumption here, something like:

P1. If anyone does evil, it is always because they are ignorant.
P2. If anyone is ignorant, it is always God who has made them ignorant.
C: Therefore, Christ actually killed himself when he was executed.

Would that be it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't equate evil with wrong. I have a thread on "From morality to equality", here. I discussed good and evil, right, and wrong there. So I change your argument slightly in the following form:

P1. If anyone does wrong, it is always because they are ignorant or imperfect.
P2. If anyone is ignorant or imperfect, it is always God who has made them ignorant or imperfect.
C: Therefore, Christ actually killed himself when he was executed.

Yes, Jesus actually killed Himself.

Anyhow, it seems to me that negligence is a thing, as well as willful ignorance. There are also cases where people simply do what they know is wrong. Pilate would be an example of the latter. He knew that crucifying an innocent man was wrong, and he did it anyway. That such an act is wrong is not only consistent with the culture that produced the NT, but within the context of the Latin culture that Pilate came from as well (e.g., it would be a blameworthy act in the context of the Aeneid, which is from the same epoch).

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, had he known it was God and that he'd be punished, he wouldn't have done it, seems to me a bit like saying a serial killer was forced to kill some child, because, had they known the child was important, and that they would have been caught for the murder due to the resources deployed to catch the offender, they wouldn't have committed it, or that someone who cheats on their spouse is somehow "unfree" in choosing to cheat if they are ignorant of the fact that they will be caught cheating. Certainly, these are cases where a person knows enough to be culpable. And more to the point, they aren't being coerced into what they know to be immoral acts, they are choosing immoral acts as an expedient means of achieving ends they desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are either in a state of belief or in a state of certainty. You cannot possibly be in a state of uncertainty if you are shown a wonder. Jesus could make a wonder to change the judge's mind. Jesus was killed. Therefore, Jesus did not show a wonder to the judge. That is one scenario. Another feasible scenario is that Jesus was not killed since He showed a wonder; therefore, Islam is at least correct in saying that Jesus was not crucified. Therefore, I seriously doubt about the idea of NT and the culture around it, like equating right with good and wrong with evil.

Yes, they had no idea of a universe. Their universe was earth. — Punshhh

Why were they not told the truth about Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars?

We don’t know any of that, because the infinite God is inconceivable to us. — Punshhh

We can be certain about those mentioned things.

And you're happy to accept the Thomist metaphysics on which this account sits? A mediaeval logic? Nothing since then appeals more?

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, — Count Timothy von Icarus

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

There is a long list of scriptures that clearly say that Jesus' death was God's plan.

Imagine that you knew someone was in debt to you so much money that they never could pay it back. You could absolve them of the debt with the snap of your fingers, but you would be being unjust: they deserve to pay that back and you deserve that money, but you are forgoing it to allow someone to be in a condition that they do not deserve out of some motive (perhaps love or kindness). In this case, you would be having mercy on them, but at the expense of being just. — Bob Ross

Doesn't it depend on the circumstances behind the debt? If a heroin addict is in debt to his dealer, is not paying off the debt "unjust"? What about being in debt to a person charging you for ransom or blackmail? Do those people deserve to be paid back?

Christ is tortured and executed by men through their free choices. He didn't crucify or scourge himself after all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How do we know he felt any pain or suffered? He's part of some powerful trinity, right? For all we know, he blocked the pain.