I found the post you were refering to Fark......but the post didn't sound like a question or a challenge, but rather a statement from you. I'm going to state what you said anyway because I feel the ransom points you mentioned are tied in with this subject after thinking about it a bit more.
. Name one parent who would kill their own child if one of the child's friends did something evil. The offenders were Adam and Eve and God still let them live 8 and a half times longer than almost all humans who've ever lived. As a result God is, in effect killing the victims of the crime: us. Would "logic" like that cut it in any civilized human society? No.
Schizm's ideas were; god is the parent, and he allowed sin to enter Adams innocent offspring even though they were'nt guilty. Farkel is saying, why would a parent kill one child over anothers childs error.
Human perfection was lost in Eden and human perfection should have been returned with the death of Jesus
Schizm said sin entered man at his fall....Farkel is saying Christs death was to eliminate sin. What's the deal?
God should have just killed Satan and been done with it. Nobody would have questioned his integrity as that would have been the right thing to do.
Schizm believes god punished man for the sin and he died. Farkel wonders why god let the snake live.
Another point was, why did the original sinners get to live 10 times longer than you and I today......they did it, not us?
Well, if schizm does't wish to partricipate any further.....perhaps another may wish to answer these questions.
BTW....sorry to re-state your intent fark and to lay it out as for a gradeschooler, but I didn't want the points to be missed by anyone who wishes to answer.
Gumby
