Until someone can logically explain why God "allows" suffering and doesn't step in, I could give a rats behind about the reconciliation. But here is one thing you have stated over and over.
We are born sinful.
Thats right, that little baby is doomed unless he accepts what, in your mind Perry, is the only way to reconciliation with god. Jesus.
That baby will grow, develop all kinds of personality traits, might even be born in China, or a Muslim country, where logically, they are doomed because they won't accept Jesus.
Doomed. Baby. Born dead unless he accepts Christ. Doomed because our original parents ate a piece of fruit after a discussion of good vs evil with a snake.
Logic?
Your premise is wrong. Always has been. You fight this point because without it, you would have to back off a lot of your statements, but you can't prove logically why we are alienated from god without the illogical Genesis account. Genesis is an allegory at best. Without accepting that I am in need of reconciliation based on the 2 naked people and snake story, I have no need for your snake oil.
You refuse to see that sin is a control mechanism of religion, of which, you personally have bought. Again and again, I respect your right to view things exactly as you do for you. But to argue it for others in the manner you do, and I must object.
No logic. Premise based on fairy tales. That is what you believe in Perry.
So in view of the foregoing, why would I try to find the illogic in the reconciliation of Jesus when the whole thing is illogical?
In short, your starting line belief that we are sinners in need of reconciliation based on the eating of a fruit by 2 naked people in some garden in the middle east after being talked into it by a snake is illogical. It's all downhill from there.
