Why did Jesus need to die?

[doubtingmerle]

You are missing what happened? The Judge (God in our case) has to see to or allow the guilty to be punished for their transgressions in an equivalent manner to the punishment of others for similar offences.

And if we see an innocent person suffering, that gives us the same level of punishment as if we are punished?

Then why send people to jail? Why not just ask them to watch a movie of human suffering, and send them home?

I do not see how reading about the crucifixion is the same level of punishment as eternal torture in hell.

The Judge could see the Old man suffered for his crime, as much as being beaten and that is the responsibility of the judge/General. The Judge does not care about what the son did (unlike God with Jesus), just that the Old man is punished for his crime.

And you are telling me that reading the gospel story to you is as much punishment to you as spending eternity in eternal flames, so therefore you have received your full punishment?

I am sorry, I think a conscious eternity in fire is worse punishment.

God for all the good reasons to discipline (punishment) and for God to remain just (treating everyone equally) God has to make sure even the saved are punished for their transgressions, but therein lies a huge problem, sin has to create a huge debt (for the sake of the willing) that will destroy the saved if they physically have to pay the debt. Those that understand what Christ did and realize it was done because of their transgression, will feel the pain (like the old man in my parable), because Jesus is their older innocent Brother that they Love more than their own life. The “saved” look back on the cross with mixed emotions of Great horror pain remorse and yet with great love because of the Love being shown by God and Christ.

Sin requires a huge punishment, so huge that you need to read a story about somebody dying for your sins? When you have understood that story, you have become punished in full?

I am sorry, but I do not understand how one could claim that understanding that story counts as payment in full.

If a mother offers to die so her murdering son can go free, would that be acceptable? I cannot understand how that would be justice.

No! that is totally not just!

And in your parable, when the son is killed for his weak father's crime, is that not justice either? And if Jesus is killed for your sins, is that not justice either?

So are you saying that salvation is possible, only if somebody else is treated unjustly?

If those are all equivalent punishments then they could be used. The problem with God is the debt created by sin is huge and has to remain huge because the benefit of the huge debt is in the forgiveness “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so by humbly accepting being forgiven of much the person will automatically Love much and the Love is the objective.
The punishment the saved individuals receive through being responsible for their older innocent Brother’s torture and murder does not lessen the value of the debt.

You deserve a huge punishment, and understanding the gospel story is equivalent to that huge punishment?

Interesting. So you have already endured as much punishment as the man who has been screaming in flames with no relief for hundreds of years?

If a man commits a crime, and the wrong man is arrested and put in jail, does the criminal then feel that he has been punished?

Right! But that is totally not what happened. Jesus is not being “punished” instead of us and is not being “punished” at all. Jesus is allowing himself to be unjustly tortured, humiliated, bare our sins and murdered, so we can have a way to be punished equivalently and still live, without being destroyed.

Let me reword my question:

If a man commits a crime, and the wrong man is unjustly tortured, humiliated, bares his crime, and is murdered, does the criminal then feel that he has been punished? Can the criminal then go free?

 

[steve_bakr]

OK, but what about the question of the opening post? Why did Jesus need to die to do this? Why couldn't he just give us eternal salvation without dying? Saying he had to die to give us eternal salvation because he had to die to give us eternal salvation is reasoning in a circle.

Interesting. So if I have faith that everybody does just fine after death, that there is no hell, and all will be well, then all will be well? As long as I have faith, then that is fine?

Two bridges exist over a huge river. One is built on sound engineering principles based on physical evidence and logical reasoning. The other is based on no calculations, but someone just tied a few things together and said "Trust me". Which bridge will you choose?

I choose science, reason, and logic.

Science and reason are great for building bridges and balancing the checkbook, but your thinking--"I choose science" (ie. over faith)--is like elevating the pottery above the potter. We are so infinitely small compared to God.and.his creation.

 

[TheGMan]

Paul made a number of mistakes, yes?

I think he had a very different emphasis - in a large part because of his own preconceptions. But I think if you look at what Paul was arguing for, rather than how he argues it, then he's not that mistaken about the practical stuff.

One would think that if Jesus was God, that he could figure out a way to minister without dying for it.

I am sure he could have done... particularly if he was G-d. But Jesus certainly wasn't shy about asking other people to die for his ministry. And he didn't much like hypocrites either. So maybe he felt a moral obligation to walk the walk.

After all, most of what he taught had already been taught by others, including the Greek Cynics.

You're clearly a keener student of antiquity than I. Perhaps you could cite a cynic apophthegm or two so I can appreciate the similarity.

 

[aiki]

God was bearing somebody else's punishment? How can that be justice?

The punishment was justice. God bearing that punishment for us was mercy.

Suppose your school teacher had said that, if anybody talks in class, then she would punish herself by hitting herself on the head with a hammer? Do you think that would have been an effective way to keep her students quiet?

I don't know. For myself, I would find it very disturbing to see my teacher strike herself with a hammer every time I got out of line in her class. I would behave simply to avoid seeing such a thing! In any case, your analogy isn't a good one. First of all, God is not on the same level of authority that a teacher is. He is infinitely beyond any position of human authority you can point to. I think this makes a huge difference. God doesn't merely enforce the rules, like a teacher would, He makes them. Second, God, in the person of His Son, has taken the punishment for the sins of all mankind past, present, and future upon Himself only once. God does not punish Himself anew each time one of us sins like your teacher does with a hammer every time a student misbehaves. Third, God will judge and punish those who defy His rules and refuse His gift of salvation. We must own our wickedness, we must humble ourselves and admit to Him that we did wrong against Him and need His forgiveness. And we must submit to His Lordship, His rule and control of our lives, in order to be saved. You missed this entirely in your analogy.

God didn't have to do as He did. He could have left us all to suffer the penalty for our sin, which we richly deserve.
I see.

And we "richly deserve" what exactly? Is suffering "the penalty for our sin" just a whitewashed way of describing burning in hell in eternal conscious torment forever?

And do you think that you and I, "richly deserve" to have the smoke of our conscious torment ascend up forever and ever?

Oh, dear sir, I beg to differ with you. I don't think any human being richly deserves to be placed in a state of conscious torment forever.

Well, you would, of course, feel this way. Who wouldn't? And it is precisely because our first reaction as sinful humans to God's judgment of our sin is as you describe above that it takes an act of God to bring us to a place of repentance and submission to Him.

None of us likes to be called desperately wicked and evil, but compared to a perfectly holy God that is exactly what we are.

Jeremiah 17:9
9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

Isaiah 64:5-6
5 ...You are indeed angry, for we have sinned-- In these ways we continue; And we need to be saved.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.

Romans 3:10-18
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

As a human being, sin is a natural, familiar, common part of your existence. I suspect that most of what God would look upon as sin in your life you would consider to be perfectly all right. Your view of sin and God's view of it are completely different. Nonetheless, you seem to think God's got it all wrong. He should take your view of yourself, rather than His own.

God, however, is "light and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn. 1:5); He is "holy, holy, holy." (Rev. 4:8) He hates sin with an absolute hatred. What we see as ordinary and normal God despises as wicked and vile. We are so utterly opposite God in this respect that it takes His divine intervention for us to see ourselves as He sees us. And until we do, there can be no genuine salvation, no true love for God.

All of our sin is ultimately against an infinite, perfect, omnipotent God. We contravene by our sin the command of the Sovereign Ruler and Creator of the universe. It is for this reason that our sin deserves the terrible, eternal punishment God renders upon it. Our sin often harms the innocent and causes sorrow, and pain, and death. For this reason our sin deserves the awful punishment of hell. Our sin corrupts God's once-perfect Creation and defiles everything it touches. For this reason, our sin warrants God's wrathful judgment of it. Our sin despises the humiliation and pain God suffered in order to make a way for us to escape His wrath and judgment. It spits upon the loving sacrifice of Christ for our sin. Oh, dear sir, we most certainly richly deserve the eternal torment of hell.

Of course, we diminish God and the nature of our sin so that we may live more easily with it and justify our rebellion toward our Maker. Who wants to worship a God who over-reacts with such extremity to such a petty, small, finite thing as our sin? He is a monster, not a loving God! This is often how we argue against the truth of our sin and God's terrible punishment of it. Sadly, no amount of spin will alter what is true and real. No matter our objections, God will send us to hell if we don't accept His love-gift of salvation before we die.

And his own rules state that he won't save from hell unless he first submits himself to physical punishment?

If he is God, and can make any rules he wants, then I don't understand why he cannot make a rule that says he will forgive others without first punishing himself.

God never made a rule that says He will only forgive others by first punishing Himself. The rule is that "the wages of sin is death." (Ro. 6:23) It is coupled to the law that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Heb. 9:22) God satisfied these rules, not because He had to, but because He loved us and chose to. He could have let us satisfy the demands of these laws for ourselves. The only reason He didn't was because He is a loving and merciful God.

And God can't "make any rule he wants." God's laws reflect His nature; He is bound by who He is and so are His rules. (Tit. 1:2)

Selah.

 

[bling]

[/size][/font][/color][/font]
And if we see an innocent person suffering, that gives us the same level of punishment as if we are punished?

Then why send people to jail? Why not just ask them to watch a movie of human suffering, and send them home?

I do not see how reading about the crucifixion is the same level of punishment as eternal torture in hell.

First off: the Bible does not teach “eternal torture in hell”, but the burning up eventually of everything that goes there, by a “flame” that no man can extinguish.

The reason we can watch a film about an innocent person being tortured and murdered with little impact; is that person is not our child or our parents or our older loving totally innocent brother we really know. And the person suffering is not there because of your personal transgressions. It is somewhat tough to understand, but if I personally had not sinned and eventually obtained Godly type Love, than there would be “another way” and Christ would not have had to go to the cross. You see in this way: “I am personally responsible for Christ going to the cross”. The only thing keeping me from having debilitating remorse over Christ going to the cross is the Love that is also there.

And you are telling me that reading the gospel story to you is as much punishment to you as spending eternity in eternal flames, so therefore you have received your full punishment?

I am sorry, I think a conscious eternity in fire is worse punishment.

Again those that go to hell do not have an eternal life in hell. (Eternal life is reserved for those in heaven).

The reason you do not feel cut to the heart (Acts 2:37) experience a death blow when reading the Gospel is because you do not believe.

Sin requires a huge punishment, so huge that you need to read a story about somebody dying for your sins? When you have understood that story, you have become punished in full?


I am sorry, but I do not understand how one could claim that understanding that story counts as payment in full.

Again you have not felt a death blow to your heart (Acts 2: 37).

And in your parable, when the son is killed for his weak father's crime, is that not justice either? And if Jesus is killed for your sins, is that not justice either?

In my parable the son was not killed.

The son in my parable is not being tortured by the judge/General but is tortured by the enemies of the general, father and him. These enemies are not torturing the son for the father. The son allowed the enemies to torture him, so the father could receive a just punishment that would allow the judge to not have to physically punish the father, since the father has already received punishment for his transgressions. The son is doing this because the father has transgressed, so the father really feels sorrow.

So are you saying that salvation is possible, only if somebody else is treated unjustly?


You deserve a huge punishment, and understanding the gospel story is equivalent to that huge punishment?



Interesting. So you have already endured as much punishment as the man who has been screaming in flames with no relief for hundreds of years?

Again sinners are not eternal beings.

Let me reword my question:


If a man commits a crime, and the wrong man is unjustly tortured, humiliated, bares his crime, and is murdered, does the criminal then feel that he has been punished? Can the criminal then go free?

If the “wrong man” is loved by the one that committed the crime far more than the criminal loves everything else including his own life and if the “wrong man” allowed himself to be tortured because of the criminal’s crimes, then Yes the criminal need no more punishment.

This also brings up the issue of “forgiveness” which is totally separate from the punishment. God’s “forgiveness” is like you have never done the transgression it is forgetting of the crime. We forgive our children yet we still punish (discipline) them.

These ideas are mine and I have not yet read anything that supports this concept beside the Bible, so I am interested in your ideas.

 

[Emmy]

Dear doubtingmerle. God`s eternal and Holy Law demands payment for committed sins, and God told us in the O.T. that He did not want the blood of animals, He wants our Love freely given and absolutely selfless. But there was no-one living who was without sin or any wrongdoings. Jesus offered Himself to pay the debt we owed to God`s Law, and Jesus died for us out of Love for God and us sinners, He died that we might live, He is our Saviour, and also The Way back to God, where we came from. If Jesus had not paid for our sins, we would still be where?? it does not bear to think about. The Bible tells us what we have to do now: to change our selfish and unloving character, to love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. Also: to love our neighbour as ourselves. God wants loving children/sons and daughters, and Jesus will give us His Love and Joy, and the Holy Spirit will give us His Love, too. Jesus told us to: " ask and ye receive," then we thank God and share all with our neighbour. God sees our sincere efforts, and God will approve and bless us, and God will know that we love Him, Why?? because we are following God`s Commandments to LOVE. A small price for all God/Jesus has done for us, wouldn`t you agree, doubtingmerle? I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[steve_bakr]

Dear Merle,

Instead of analyzing it, why don't you just try to feel it with your heart? Perhaps doubtingmerle will become believingmerle and your monicker will change from "I'll think about it" to "I'll pray about it."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Science and reason are great for building bridges and balancing the checkbook, but your thinking--"I choose science" (ie. over faith)--is like elevating the pottery above the potter. We are so infinitely small compared to God.and.his creation.

We can all agree that elevating the pottery over the potter is not good.

And we can all agree that we are infinitely small compared to the sum of the universe.

Faith seems to me like an odd choice for discovering what is behind the universe. For one could choose to have faith in anything, and then declare that since he has faith, therefore it is true. If a person can prove anything by saying he has faith that he is right and others are wrong, how can that be a useful way of finding truth?

But we digress. We our here to discuss why Jesus had to die, not what caused the Big Bang.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Instead of analyzing it, why don't you just try to feel it with your heart? Perhaps doubtingmerle will become believingmerle

And I should also try to feel Islam in my heart?

And I should also try to feel all the tribal religions in my heart?

And I should also try to feel Hinduism in my heart?

And I should not analyze any of these religions, but just try to feel them in my heart?

I am curious: Do you practice this advice yourself? Do you try to feel religions that your analysis disagrees with?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But I think if you look at what Paul was arguing for, rather than how he argues it, then he's not that mistaken about the practical stuff.

Truth in advertising? What a refreshing thing it is to see that on this board.

Heck, this book argues things the wrong way, but its not that mistaken about practical stuff.

You're clearly a keener student of antiquity than I. Perhaps you could cite a cynic apophthegm or two so I can appreciate the similarity.

See Common Paine: Was Jesus a Cynic?.

 

[steve_bakr]

And I should also try to feel Islam in my heart?

And I should also try to feel all the tribal religions in my heart?

And I should also try to feel Hinduism in my heart?

And I should not analyze any of these religions, but just try to feel them in my heart?

I am curious: Do you practice this advice yourself? Do you try to feel religions that your analysis disagrees with?

I was simply saying that logic is not the only approach, and not even the best approach, in the matter of religious belief.

In answer to your question, while I am weak in the area of tribal religions, I have indeed studied World Religion quite a lot, most recently I spent two years in the study of Islam, including Islamic mysticism, philosophy, and the Arabic Quran. I even learned to pray as Muslims do and learned to recite the Quran.

I would love to talk with you about that or any other religion that interests you.

In the Catholic Church, it is perfectly acceptable to study other religions.

Peace

 

[TheGMan]

See Common Paine: Was Jesus a Cynic?.

Hmmm. So mainly Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus and Lucian. A couple of points:

• They aren't Cynics. The first three are usually regarded as Stoics and Lucian was an Epicurean (and a satirist rather than a philosopher - although he may have satirising the Cynics).
• They aren't anterior to Jesus. Seneca was born at roughly the same time but his writings date to later in his life, after the death of Jesus. Musonius Rufus was born around the time of Jesus's death and the others afterwards. Lucian actually satirises Christians.

Of the sources there, only Crates, the Cynic epistles and Diogenus Laertius are Cynic and anterior.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Doubtingmarie first of all think of God not just the creator of love but love itself, justice itself , morality itself. This could help. Remember when we try to judge God we judge him based on finite subjective standards which to me makes no sense since he is the essence of all that is good and just. God doesn't send anyone to he'll it is our sin that separates us from him, then we are easy pickings for Satan.

Remember if we are finite beings we can't possibly understand God fully enough to judge him. This is like a 5 year old telling his dad that he will hate him forever because he was spanked for stealing something from the store. This latter analogy isn't about hell but about the growing pains of life as opposed to the spoiled kid who gets what he wants and never grows.

Your saying that no one deserves to be in hell for eternity? Do you actually believe that there is anything on this earth that we could do for meriting heaven for eternity? Did we do anything to merit being created even?

When you look at Christ being crucified imagine the infinite love he had for us to go through this. Maybe this was also the message that God wants to get across to us

He even asked the father to forgive the people who killed him. This to me is called perfect love, agape love, Divine love.

Try to meditate on this.


Also try to remember that Jesus was also teaching us that in everything we do
Love triumphs even logic and reason, you can't put perfect love in a test tube

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of the sources there, only Crates, the Cynic epistles and Diogenus Laertius are Cynic and anterior.

The main point is that many of these people were independently saying the same things as Jesus. Jesus was not the only person saying these things.

And not everyone who said these things was killed for saying them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God doesn't send anyone to he'll it is our sin that separates us from him, then we are easy pickings for Satan.

OK, but if they go there, does he let them suffer there without removing them? Does he administer anethesia to the suffering souls?

(I don't think hell exists, or that God abandons people there. I am merely asking what you think, having already told us you think some go there.)

Remember if we are finite beings we can't possibly understand God fully enough to judge him. This is like a 5 year old telling his dad that he will hate him forever because he was spanked for stealing something from the store. This latter analogy isn't about hell but about the growing pains of life as opposed to the spoiled kid who gets what he wants and never grows.

Uh, what if the boy had watched his father kill his mother, molest and kill his sister, and then attack the boy himself and leave him for dead? If the boy survives, would you then tell him he should not judge his Dad, because his Dad was helping him grow up properly?

Sometimes parents are wrong, yes? It is OK to disagree with parents and other authorites, yes?

Your saying that no one deserves to be in hell for eternity? Do you actually believe that there is anything on this earth that we could do for meriting heaven for eternity? Did we do anything to merit being created even?

Huh? I said absolutely nothing about meriting eternity. Heck, I don't even merit a personal invitation to dinner with my governor, let alone the ruler of the universe.

What I said is that nobody merits a state of eternal conscious torment. Do you think some people deserve to be put into a state of eternal conscious torment?

When you look at Christ being crucified imagine the infinite love he had for us to go through this. Maybe this was also the message that God wants to get across to us

Infinite love? Many have been killed because of what they stood for. Have all had infinite love?

And they did not kill Christ's soul, did they? All that died was his body, which was just a temporary house of the infinite Son. How can it require infinite love to see an immortal soul temporarily lose his mortal body?

He even asked the father to forgive the people who killed him. This to me is called perfect love, agape love, Divine love.

Fine.

But why did he have to die? Why didn't he just give salvation without dying?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I was simply saying that logic is not the only approach, and not even the best approach, in the matter of religious belief.

And what is the best approach in the matter of religious belief? You suggested faith, and I explained to you why I didn't think that is the best approach. Do you still think that is the best approach?

I would love to talk with you about that or any other religion that interests you.

Ok, lets first talk about Christianity, since we are in the Christian Forums.

Perhaps some day we could talk about Humanism, which is not actually a religion, but is a philosophy of life with a lot of merits. I would love to talk to you about that.

 

[TheGMan]

The main point is that many of these people were independently saying the same things as Jesus.

Well no. You said...

After all, most of what he taught had already been taught by others, including the Greek Cynics.

That's what I was taking issue with.

Are the parallels between some of Jesus's moral teachings and some of Seneca's? It wouldn't surprise me. Morality is morality. You don't have to be Jesus to understand it.

But the primary purpose of Jesus's ministry was not to teach people to live a good life. It was to be the messiah. I understand why one might be skeptical about that claim, but I don't think you can argue with the fact that this is what he was claiming to be. And Diogenes and Seneca, Musonius Rufus and Epictetus, were not claiming that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh, dear sir, we most certainly richly deserve the eternal torment of hell.

Why do you address me as "dear sir"? For "dear sir" is a term that shows you would like the other person to feel a sense of value and worth. If I deserve eternal concious torment in hell, how can I also deserve to feel value and worth?

Suppose you meet a person who suffers from low self-esteem who tells you his life is not worth living, that he wishes it would all be over. Would you tell him not to say that, for he is exalting himself too high? Would you tell him he is not worthy even of annihlation? Would you tell him he is so evil that he is worthy of an eternity of torment, that he deserves not one drop of water or 1 minute under anethesia to relieve the pain for all eternity? Would you tell him his problem is that his self-esteem is too high?

Romans 3:10-18
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Well, yes, Paul correctly tells you these things are written, but what he does not tell you is that, when these things were written, they do not mean what Paul says they mean. Please look up these verses in the Old Testament where they originated. Does any of those verses mean that there in nobody anywhere in the world that is righteous? No? And yet Paul strings them together as though they prove his point.

Can you understand that Paul is not using a valid argument here?

 

[razeontherock]

This is the wrong thread for this, but a subject you posted at length about is the concept of Jesus, perhaps being merely mystical, metaphysical, Spiritual, but never physical. I don't believe that's true, but look at it this way:

for your life or mine, how would it be different either way? We still have a subset of possibilities we can define as righteous, moving us towards holiness. Either way, choosing those things is Christ on the white horse as the conqueror of sin and death, enabling us to overcome our own sin. Just a thought!

Peace

 

[aiki]

Why do you address me as "dear sir"? For "dear sir" is a term that shows you would like the other person to feel a sense of value and worth. If I deserve eternal concious torment in hell, how can I also deserve to feel value and worth?

Punishment and value are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. You are valuable because you're a creation of God. Your sin doesn't diminish your intrinsic worth as one of God's creatures but it does carry serious eternal consequences. God judges your sin, not because you are worthless, but because His holy law demands it.

I addressed you as "dear sir" after you addressed me in this way in your last post to me.

Suppose you meet a person who suffers from low self-esteem who tells you his life is not worth living, that he wishes it would all be over. Would you tell him not to say that, for he is exalting himself too high?

No. I would tell him he feels about life as he does because he hasn't been living it in the manner in which his Creator intended. I would tell him that if he ended it all, he would have to answer to his Maker for living contrary to the purposes for which he had been made.

Would you tell him he is not worthy even of annihlation?

No. I would tell him that God loved him so much that He made a way for him to be reconciled to Himself and transformed by His power into a person who delights in the life he has been given.

Would you tell him he is so evil that he is worthy of an eternity of torment, that he deserves not one drop of water or 1 minute under anethesia to relieve the pain for all eternity?

No. I would tell him such a fate is never the option God hopes we'll choose. I would tell him that the open, loving arms of His Heavenly Father await if he'll only humble himself before his Maker, repent of his sin, and embrace the gift of salvation God offers to every person.

Would you tell him his problem is that his self-esteem is too high?

Yes, in fact, I would. It is that we love ourselves too much and God not enough that we live at odds with Him. We esteem ourselves and our desires more highly than God and His purposes for us and this is what takes us down the road to disaster and despair.

Well, yes, Paul correctly tells you these things are written, but what he does not tell you is that, when these things were written, they do not mean what Paul says they mean. Please look up these verses in the Old Testament where they originated. Does any of those verses mean that there in nobody anywhere in the world that is righteous? No? And yet Paul strings them together as though they prove his point.

Can you understand that Paul is not using a valid argument here?

Why do you think King David isn't speaking plainly in the Psalms from which Paul draws his quotation? (Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-3) It seems to me King David is doing just that. Keep in mind that he is speaking from God's perspective here, not his own. From the viewpoint of a perfectly holy God, "no one does good" and "every one of them has turned aside." This was as true in the apostle Paul's day as it was in King David's day - and it is still true today.

Selah.