|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by All the Christian sects, but particularly the American fundamentalist, evangelical, protestants, make a big thing about Christ being our personal savior. Ignoring the problem of how it could be personal as well as covering all mankind forever, I would like to ask them all about what I think is the most basic problem for any person trying to come to grips with Christianity.
God gave his only son to a horrible death on earth to save us. How could such a requirement ever come to exist? God is all powerful. Presumably he did not want to do this to his son. Does this not therefore indicate the presence of a force on God which he could not resist? How could suffering like that earn credit with or for any all-powerful being?
Sacrifices of animals and even humans made sense to ancient peoples (e.g., Aztecs, Hebrews, etc.), but now we know this is barbaric behavior based on ignorance and mindless unwilling suffering which can not achieve anything. I can understand how this notion made sense in years past and how this let Christianity get off the ground - but now?
I am amazed at how few people can give an answer to this other than something like: It is a mystery. You just believe or not - faith, etc. Surely we are entitled to better than that. Even when the Pope tries to answer it he gets into a metaphysical tangle.
Add a Comment (239)
Email This
Message Author
I am not an expert on religion and even with my beliefs and understanding of the Passion I don't think I would come close to the "truth" but I would like to share one story with you that my pastor told his congregation during an Easter service.
One cold morning a woman woke up to a loud noise outside. There was a huge flock of geese that were flying over her house on their way South for the winter. As she watched them a few very young geese landed in her front yard. She thought this strange because the rest of the flock continued on toward their final destination. She couldn't understand why they just stood there in her yard. After some time she decided to go out there and try to "shoo" them back into the sky. She knew in her heart that if they didn't return to their flock they would die a cold death when winter set in.
She went outside and began to try and get them back into the air. However, with every attempt these young geese continued to stay firm in her yard. They had no desire to return to the flock and it seemed that they had no understanding of the consequences of their actions.
This went on for quite some time.
Through this time the lady's worry began to grow, as did her desperation. She just couldn't understand what they must be thinking and why they were still in her yard.
In resignation she sat down on her porch and wept. "Why? She cried? If I could just become a goose I could explain to them the error of their ways and help them return to the flock. "
And then it hit her
That is what the life of Christ was all about.
Hopefully I did this story justice and I hope you get out of it what I did when I first heard it. I think it's a wonderful and simple explaination of why God did what he did.
Thank you. I appreciate your sincerity and a moving metaphor but I am afraid I do not understand it. I am sure many animal motivations will always remain a mystery to us humans but I see nothing profound there.
I am no expert on religion either and that is why I asked this question. One Sunday I had several nice young couples come to my front door asking whether I accepted Christ as my personal saviour. In probing their reasons for asking me this very personal question, I gradually formulated this question which always left them confused and saying that the answer must be in the bible if only they can find it. They said they would get back to me with an answer but so far none have.
I am amazed that they can have such strong sincere beliefs about my salvation without knowing how to answer this very basic question about their own.
Berhaps we have at last discovered the answer to that eternal problem of how to get rid of thr bible bashers at the front door.
Is this metaphor supposed to be relevant?
After all, if this woman were omnipotent, then solving her goose problem would be trivial. And it seems pretty unlikely that, were she omnipotent, she would choose to become a goose and "explain" it.
I think the core issue is your view of God's nature and motivations. You're correct that if you go with the view that God is omnipotent and thus can do whatever, it would make sense for him to just wave the "magic wand" and make everything perfect. A different view of God's omnipotence, however, does not allow Him to do such things that, for example, violate the law of non-contradiction, or change the past, or sin and remain God, etc. In this way, yes, there are "forces" (i.e., free agents) with which God must deal (i.e., not control). Additionally, there are things He would like to accomplish and ways he must go about accomplishing them without violating those laws, such as allowing a free agent to learn/progress through experience.
A lot more could be said on the topic, but I'll leave it at that and address your specific questions.
I have to agree, the Christian Religion has left something to be desired. It worships the messenger and not the
message that was brought.
The Bible in the Genesis tells of two trees in the garden of Eden of which Adam and Eve were not to partake.
Then having partook of the tree of Knowledge they were tossed out of the garden.
But there was another tree in the garden. The Tree of Life. This is the one that should be paid attention to.
From the Creation?? Through the Revelations.
Man was a bad child, and was sent to where man would not get into more trouble.
[Kicked out of the garden]
When a child is in need of correction the child is put under the law.
[The ten commandments]
When the child obeys the law, showing he has learned discipline, the child is given a reward.
[The son of man bringing the tree of life]
How long will it take man to learn this? That is the Revelation.
[Science is getting close]
Does this sound right to you?
There could be more.
The answer to your question is it's just a story. A story that uses tangible events to illustrate an abstract concept. I remember a quote from Chris Hedges, speaking about the Genesis story, "Genesis was not written to explain the process of creation...It was written to help explain the purpose of creation....to help us grasp a spiritual truth, not a scientific or historical fact". This concept can clearly also apply to the crucifixion. Only through the emotion of the story do we grasp the spiritual message. Asking a question like, "How could such a requirement ever come to exist?", is kind of self-defeating. You and I know both know the point of the suffering and crucifixion is to make the reader understand the love of God.
I wanted to answer you question as clear and concise as possible, but I'm sure there's a lot more that can be said.
Perhaps it is all about stories, and I can accept that the old testament and most of the new is about stories cleverly crafted to inform oppressed hebrews or 1st century converts how to act. However, to say that the concept of salvation is a mere story trivialises beliefs that still dominate the lives of many millions of people. Most of them, like me, would need to believe that there are some ultimate truths behind the details of the religion that is being so fervently being taught to them by those who claim to know.
What would be the point of learning an abstract concept through stories that are only metaphors. What would believers really end up knowing?
What would be the point of learning an abstract concept through stories that are only metaphors. What would believers really end up knowing?
It might not have been your intent, but I feel I need to defend the use of parables as an effective teaching tool. One example should suffice.
Most Christians, and many others, are familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. They see it as being a good story about a Jew in distress being ignored by those who should have cared for him, and then cared for to an extent way above and beyond the call of duty by someone the Jews hated. There is a very worthwhile and applicable meaning to take from the story's surface: help those in need, even if they hate you.
There is a whole different level to the symbolism, however. As John Welch describes in his article The Good Samaritan: Forgotten Symbols (Ensign, Feb 2007, p.40-47.):
This parable’s content is clearly practical and dramatic in its obvious meaning, but a time-honored Christian tradition also saw the parable as an impressive allegory of the Fall and Redemption of mankind. This early Christian understanding of the good Samaritan is depicted in a famous eleventh-century cathedral in Chartres, France. One of its beautiful stained-glass windows portrays the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden at the top of the window, and, in parallel, the parable of the good Samaritan at the bottom. This illustrates “a symbolic interpretation of Christ’s parable that was popular in the Middle Ages.” ... The roots of this allegorical interpretation reach deep into early Christianity. In the second century A.D., Irenaeus in France and Clement of Alexandria both saw the good Samaritan as symbolizing Christ Himself saving the fallen victim, wounded with sin. A few years later, Clement’s pupil Origen stated that this interpretation came down to him from earlier Christians, who had described the allegory as follows:
The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. ... The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.
This allegorical reading was taught not only by ancient followers of Jesus, but it was virtually universal throughout early Christianity, being advocated by Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, and in the fourth and fifth centuries by Chrysostom in Constantinople, Ambrose in Milan, and Augustine in North Africa. This interpretation is found most completely in two other medieval stained-glass windows, in the French cathedrals at Bourges and Sens.
Welch then proceeds to hit up virtually every aspect of the parable to show its analogous component in the plan of salvation. (See Welch's full article, The Good Samaritan: A Type and Shadow of the Plan of Salvation (PDF), for even more information on the analogy.)
When I first discovered this, it blew me away. The parable fit so well - better than the traditional "shallow" interpretation, in my opinion - and yet it was only obvious after a great deal of study (on Mr. Welch's part, all I had to do was read his article). And this betrays the very purpose of parables such as this: to reveal multiple levels of truth depending on the effort (faith) put in by the reader/hearer. A very effective tool, indeed.
(And if you happen to wander over to the Wikipedia page on the topic, don't think I pulled this straight from it; I was the one who added it.)
In hindsight, I should have described it as an "allegory" rather than a "parable," and a parable seems to imply a story with a single thought or message.
God gave his only son to a horrible death on earth to save us. How could such a requirement ever come to exist?
One cause for bewilderment here is in the thought that giving his only son was actually a requirement in the first place. It was probably more of a choice made by God and was not necessarily the way things had to go. In other words, if it were not that then it would have been something else, because for reasons having to do with joy and love, God was not willing to concede every human soul over to Satan, or simply annihilate everything and call it a day. The gospel of John 3:16 reads (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This passage demonstrates that attitude of love and perhaps he chose to redeem us in this way because he knew that it would be a powerful way to deliver his message to us and have it continue as long as it has.
A more pertinent question and one in which yours maybe has its roots in is, "Why does God allow Satan to have so much power over us when Satan himself is one of his creations? By removing Satan from the picture, maybe there would have been no need to give up his son for us. I think the answer to this lies fully in the concept and consequences of having freewill. I know that freewill itself is a source of contention; i.e. Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but since I am from the 'freewill camp'' I am going to elaborate with that as my basis.
By giving us freewill, God willingly gives up some of his omnipotence, because the nature of freewill requires that you cannot 'take some of it away'; it would cease to be freewill at all if this were to happen. And so in giving true freewill God has to submit to the fact that he may lose some of us to hopeless sin and rebellion against him, and ultimately to the world of Satan, even if this is not to his desire. This concession is necessary because by doing anything in the way of direct interference he would violate his own wish for freewill, which for reasons we may never know on this earth is of utmost importance to him. (I believe it has something to do with God wanting to derive joy from those who do not rebel against him on their own, but that's just me. In fact it may be the entire reason for our existence at all.)
And so I believe that the sacrifice of his only son was not so much a requirement, but a choice made by God who gave us the freewill to either live as he meant us to live, or rebel against him. For those who will understand it, the sacrifice of his son is the most powerful message of love that could be sent without violating freewill.
"There God and the Devil strive for mastery, and the battleground is the heart of man." (Fyodor Dostoevsky).
Thank you Gnifyus,
I think that is about the best explanation I am likely to get from the side of the believers. Well done indeed!
It is still ave very hard one for a non-believer to get through and one which I think is skipped by many who become Christians in a haze of love and happy feelings. It seems that underneath these very common beliefs lies a profoundly dark, mysterious and unpleasant truth about the nature of God.
I don't think so much can be attributed to free will, as that relegates us to a mere experiment and that denies the love motive.
Those who do have some understanding of these things probably believe that it is better not to burden those who can come to the faith throug simple beliefs about an all powerful and all loving super hero. I am still amazed that they seem to get away with it most of the time.
It seems that underneath these very common beliefs lies a profoundly dark, mysterious and unpleasant truth about the nature of God.
Though I agree with you on the mysterious part, the 'dark and unpleasant" I do not.
Not knowing, or only being able to make feeble guesses as to what the true purpose of our existence is in our relationship with God does not put me in the same bad state of mind as, for example an employee of a large corporation who never knows what's going on "upstairs" and lives under the doom and gloom of always waiting for the axe to fall. In other words, not making Himself clearly known does not bother me; in fact I feel there is a good deal of wisdom (of course) in God remaining elusive enough to make us have to seek Him out in a manner that fits our own spiritual direction and requires the freewill given us to begin and continue the journey. It's sort of like when I was helping my children learn to walk; I couldn't always hold their arms and do it for them, eventually they had to get up and come (awkwardly at first) towards me on their own volition. Incidentally, while I'm on the walking metaphor, my children had no idea at the time why they needed to walk; they only knew they wanted to come toward me, who (fortunately) was a trusted being in their limited experience at that time.
I don't think so much can be attributed to free will, as that relegates us to a mere experiment and that denies the love motive.
I could possibly agree to attributing freewill to the domain of an "experiment", but qualifying the word "experiment" with the word "mere" is not really fair in some ways. Even in the world of men there have been some scientists who were so passionate about their own experiments, that they took great risks or even gave their lives for the sake of their work. One could even use the word "love" in describing this passion.
The gospel of John 3:16 reads (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This passage demonstrates that attitude of love and perhaps he chose to redeem us in this way because he knew that it would be a powerful way to deliver his message to us and have it continue as long as it has.
Absolutely dead on, but let's take it further into John 3:17-21
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
Light came into the world; Christ replaces Lucifer (Satan) as the Light, because Lucifer became the Darkness. Lucifer/Satan represents the easy way of prideful disobediece, while Christ represents the hard path of obedience.
A further anonymous post gives understanding to the why of the necessity of the method Christ perished. Because Sin is such a great affront to God, it takes blood to wash it away. But, not just any blood, rather the blood of a pure animal:
The sacrificial system reaches its climax with the nation of Israel. God commanded the nation to perform numerous different sacrifices. According to Leviticus 1:1-4, a certain procedure was to be followed. First, the animal had to be spotless. Next, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Then the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided forgiveness of sins. Another sacrifice called the day of atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin.
Why, then, do we no longer offer animal sacrifices today? Animal sacrifices have ended because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus for the first time, "Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). You may be asking yourself, why animals? What did they do wrong? That is the point, in that since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. Jesus Christ also knew no wrong but willingly gave Himself to die for the sins of mankind (1 Timothy 2:6). Many people call this idea of dying in place of someone else substitution. Jesus Christ took our sin upon himself and died in our place. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He (God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Through faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, the individual can receive forgiveness.
Nothing was more pure than Christ; The sinless Christ. God in human form.
By giving us freewill, God willingly gives up some of his omnipotence, because the nature of freewill requires that you cannot 'take some of it away'; it would cease to be freewill at all if this were to happen. And so in giving true freewill God has to submit to the fact that he may lose some of us to hopeless sin and rebellion against him, and ultimately to the world of Satan, even if this is not to his desire. This concession is necessary because by doing anything in the way of direct interference he would violate his own wish for freewill, which for reasons we may never know on this earth is of utmost importance to him. (I believe it has something to do with God wanting to derive joy from those who do not rebel against him on their own, but that's just me. In fact it may be the entire reason for our existence at all.)
God derives joy from those who come home to him, just as any parent derives joy when a child returns home; as in the parable of the Prodigal Son. However, that same parent does not wish to force their child to come home, rather they prefer that they return of their own desires; hence 'freewill'.
Thanks for a very thoughtful response.
I still can't believe that killing something not involved in the sinning will expiate the sin and put things right with God - or indeed ever did. The two things are not connected in any way. It reeks of primitive barbarism to me.
Think of it in terms of Newtons Third law..'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' The very presence of sin is not possible where the Holy exists; sin has to be shielded, and the only thing that can shield sin is the opposite of sin: purity. Thus, only the sinless can bear the presence of God.
If you recall that Christ was God in human form, then you see that God really sacrificed Himself for us, so we could stand in the presence of the Holy.
Hm..I posted the above but forgot to login...serves me right for doing this at bedtime..
Gnifyus
Please excuse the late reply but I have been thinking more about your thoughtful response lately.
I accept that god gave us all free will. We can make our own choices without any interference. However, being omniscient, He knew before He created us exactly how we would act in every situation throughout our lives. So freewill and predestination are not incompatible notions. One applies to Him and the other to us..
This begs the question of why we will be on trial for our performance on Earth when he put us here knowing exactly what we would do. I would not punish my golden retriever for mounting a bitch in heat because I know he will do that if I put him in that situation. I would blame myself.
It absolutely beggars belief that God would create us knowing what he would have to do to save us and then expect eternal gratitude.
However, being omniscient, He knew before He created us exactly how we would act in every situation throughout our lives.
I'm not sure of that statement. I mentioned the possibility that God “gave up” some of his omnipotence and omniscience when allowing for freewill. Maybe ‘deferred’ is a better way of putting it, as one might believe that God could use his all-knowing, all-seeing ways at any time if he deemed it necessary, but chooses not to in any direct manner. Instead of an omniscience of details it becomes an omniscience of overall purpose and direction which each person has some part in if they choose to search for it. So, the purpose itself is predetermined by God, but the way in which it is arrived at, or if it is ever arrived at, is left to the uncertainties of freewill. Instead of micromanaging every detail and decision of our individual lives, these details, (which can all add up to our ultimate personal direction and destiny) are also a product of freewill. When by acting on our own, if we actually manage to fulfill his purpose, God then derives his subsequent joy from these actions. Again, the analogy of not doing and controlling everything for our own children (painful as it might be) comes to mind. I personally get a sense of joy whenever my children (both teens) make a good decision on their own, and this could not happen without the freedom given to make those decisions.
This begs the question of why we will be on trial for our performance on Earth when he put us here knowing exactly what we would do.
Besides the predetermination part of that statement which I tried to address above, it seems you are questioning what I would call the 'scorecard belief' or the belief that each transgression against God is tallied up at the end and one's ultimate destiny is decided from those results. I prefer to think of it as a much more analog "direction of the heart". Each transgression or act against God's purpose causes a persons heart to turn "away from the light" so to speak. Enough of these actions might cause a person to change beyond recognition; sort of a Darth Vader story, or Elliot Spitzer, if you will.
It absolutely beggars belief that God would create us knowing what he would have to do to save us and then expect eternal gratitude.
I'm not sure what you mean by eternal gratitude, unless you are talking about "praise" which is very different concept when applied to God as opposed to our fellow men.
I'll leave you with a C.S. Lewis quote to further your confusion:
"I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation."
When you reach a point where you "enjoy" God the praise is only natural, this seems to say.
I'm not putting out these thoughts with any pretense of convincing you of anything; in fact most of it was composed while trying to eat left-over stir-fry for lunch, but thanks for turning over the hay and drudging up old conversations. There's two things that are telltale signs of becoming an Omninerd veteran. One is when you begin to repeat yourself, and the other is when you read your old replies and think: "Did I really write that?"
Gnifyus,
An excellent response for which I am grateful. I am clearly not up to your standard of knowledge or eloquence on this subject, but if you will forgive an under-informed view, I would reply that you seem to be lapsing into the mode of shaping God's powers according to the needs of your argument. Suggesting that He can suspend some of His powers for the purpose of equivocation in creating free will is a bit like saying He can make a rock too heavy for Himself to lift - a logical contradiction.
Either He is omniscient or He is not. Perhaps you assume that His thoughts are laid out in the time domain as ours are, but it seems more likely that he has them all at once. With His brain power I think it unlikely that he is using a serial processor or I/O. That is why I feel that he knows what he knows during the process of creation. If true knowledge of every decision we make exists somewhere before we are born (in God or elsewhere) then everything is predestined for us. That is simply by definition and not my opinion.
I accept what you say about our desire and need to praise. That explains a lot to me as I have always felt that all the "Praise Him, Praise him" rant was a lazy way of praying. We don't praise anything else by saying "praise it". Instead, we give some thought to composing a decent compliment. Is praise from a vastly inferior creature valuable. Would you be pleased if an ant told you what a big, strong and smart fellow you are?
I am relieved that you reject the score card accountability model - too scary by far.
Your quote has added to my confusion as you feared - but in a nice way.
Thanks sincerely
I am clearly not up to your standard of knowledge or eloquence on this subject..
First, I'm flattered you think I'm knowledgeable, but really please; these are just thoughts and opinions I have about the subject (based on what?), and any perceived eloquence is quite frankly being used as a mask to cover up that fact. (I'll try to prove that statement in my subsequent comments.)
I always loved the paradox of "Gods Rock". It creates a simple circular impossibility that is humorous in poking fun at our conception of omnipotence. Wasn't it George Carlin who used it in his old comedy routine about his experiences at Catholic School? I wonder if he invented it? I don't think it quite applies to my theory of deferred omniscience though, because having the ability to know something and actually knowing it form a much more linear relationship. In order for freewill to exist in a world with an omniscient God, I guess he would have to allow events as they pertain to us to manifest themselves in a serial fashion. I also get confused when thinking about an entity that by its definition must be able to exist in all times and places at once. Perhaps being outside time and place somehow allows for this. But we are not outside time and place, so why can't our futures be variable based on events and decisions that happen here with God only observing and giving subtle influence? We move through time like a line being drawn, the nearest end able to change direction in accordance with these events. (If you haven't already, see Omninerd's Philosophy of Time Travel when you feel the need for a good headache.)
You are right, in my opinion, that if omniscience cannot be suspended then freewill is replaced by complete pre-destiny and we are trapped in a book that has already been written, read and shelved. Pre-destiny carries its own set of problems for me; the biggest one being the question of "why would He bother?" It also removes the concept of joy from the argument because we have no chance to please Him and no reason to praise Him; two things theologians seem to think are very important to God. The only thing I do like about pre-destiny is that if it were to be proven (which it probably can't) then the existence of a supreme being becomes obvious. (Who's prepared our destinies?)
The only other thought I can come up with would be that every possible outcome is known and we traverse a winding path through these possibilities based on our immediate choices. That seems overly complicated to me, but who knows?
I hate to say this because it's not what you're looking for, but in the end these arguments always boil down to a matter of faith. Faith is a concept one either rejects completely, upholds by trying to explain the un-provable and unknowable, (hence the "shaping of Gods powers"), or as in the case of some, just accept as presented. No one ever seems to be able to totally convince anybody but themselves and their like on this subject, and even that wavers back and forth sometimes causing the search to go on. A quote from Ursula Le Guin from "The Left Hand of Darkness" comes to my mind for some reason:
"The unknown, the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God, there would be no religion. But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion... Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable—the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?"
"That we shall die."
"Yes. There's only one question that can be answered, Genry, and you already know the answer…. The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
Your quote has added to my confusion as you feared - but in a nice way.
You seem to have understood it. It would be extremely hypocritical for me not to be 'nice'; after all, we're just two neighbors talking over The Fence...
gnifyus
Thank you. You make sense, but who knows? I would not want to know my destiny and I would prefer that no one else did.
I think you are right about it being a matter of faith - belief without proof. You either have it or you don't. I think it is harder if you are well educated. If you don't I suspect that you can't get it by praying or studying because for that to be effective you already have to believe. Even the very knowledgeable and most devout can still lack faith.
I doubt that you can teach faith either.
It is hard to draw a clear line between the faithful and the gullible. If that sounds offensive to a Christian, then think in terms of other religions.
It's nice to have a friendly neighbour who can talk metaphysics over the fence.
If you look in the Bible the forgiveness of sins has always demanded blood. This is God's justice. God is not only all knowing he is pure holiness and therefore demands atonement for all sins. He gave us all this through his Son Jesus. Of course he didn't want this to happen to his son but he loves his creation so much that he was willing to sacrafice his son to save us all. This was the plan since the begining of time, it didn't just come up spontaniously. It was all part of the grand plan- to trust in his Son Jesus. The reason his suffering can earn credit is because Jesus was sinless and didn't deserve what he got. It should have been us on the cross. All we have to do is acknowledge his sacrafice and trust in Jesus. I'll pray for you.
This is a circuitous argument. It is really saying that God has always demanded blood. The old testament is a collection of Hebrew stories intended to shore up confidence of a people being perpertually oppressed and kicked around through ancient history. Therefore it is bound to be bloody and unreliable in its account of the character of God.
So he demanded the blood of an innocent son to atone for the sins of people who would not be born for thousands of years. Does this actually make sense yo you.
So he demanded the blood of an innocent son to atone for the sins of people who would not be born for thousands of years. Does this actually make sense yo you.
Yes, it absolutely does make sense. However, don't take my simplified answer as complete evidence.
OK, So all the NT guys say much the same thing, but what I meant about it making sense is what is the mechanism whereby the sacrifice actually achieves something.
Modern people cannot accept a god who demands such dreadful things so that he can feel happy about other things. NO CONNECTION
Take you head out of the bible because that mind set is at issue here. Tell me in a rational way where is the sense in un connected sacrifice. I understand when the loss is connected to a benefit such as a soldier in a war or a mother for her unborn child. CONNECTION
Take you head out of the bible because that mind set is at issue here. Tell me in a rational way where is the sense in un connected sacrifice.
Taking my head of the bible in reference to this question is not possible due to the topic we are discussing. Sin and Sacrifice are connected; the former requires the latter if we intend to stand before God. Even in the time of Christ, until the veil separating the Holy of Holies (God) from the sinful masses was torn, sacrifice--so that they could enter the presence of God), Sin required a Sacrifice; God sacrificed animals to 'cover' the sin of Adam and Eve; but from the time of Moses, a bull (Leviticus 16) was used to cover sin. Upon the death of Christ, His sacrifice granted each of us the right to enter the presence of God.
It isn't that God demands the sacrifice so he can feel 'Happy', it's that the pure blood is used to cover the sin so that the sinner can enter the presence of the Lord. If the covering failed to exist, the Holiness and Purity of God would utterly destroy the sinner. Blood Sacrifice is the RANSOM discussed in Exodus 30:12 for the life of Israelite--or the sinner.
Did God want to sacrifice His only Son? No, I'm quite certain He did not. But, He knew He would, for the die had been cast at the moment of Adam's sin. Since the only way to redeem sin is by blood, God made the plan even before He created Man.
How does it earn credit? It doesn't earn credit, the blood is our shield to cover sin; so that the sinner (all of us) may stand in the presence of God without being destroyed. Since the ultimate sacfrice, the 'Lamb of God' was God himself--in flesh, that sacrifice is powerful enough to cover all sin for all time.
For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God Romans 3:23
Thanks. I am sure that makes sense to you, but I wish I could understand it. I guess my modern mind has difficulty with the concept of innocent blood "covering" (somehow compensating for??) sin.
It still looks to me like God has to live with rules that he doesn't much like. Where did they come from?
Actually it's not "sins" in the plural...it's "sin" singular. It's not that he died for "us" per-se, he died for all the decendents of Adam (everyone human who will ever exist.) That's a big thing that a lot of religions get caught up with...they figure "hey, Jesus paid it all, let's go party..." They feel to realize that the only thing that Jesus' death did was to give you a CHANCE at eternal life (the life that Adam was living before he sinned) and when we talk about "eternal life" we're talking about eternal life for our souls, not our bodies...our bodies are cursed (You know that serpent in the garden?? Wasn't an anaconda, it was the carnal mind of people, when God cursed it "upon thy belly thou shalt go and dust ye shall eat all the days of thy life" If you research "belly" in the bible its a symbol of "desires" and "dust" is sin, or temperal things (money, women, power) Point is, there is no hope for this physical body...(for now ;-) but Jesus gave us the opportunity (through the Holy Ghost) to conquer sin...
I find it interesting how EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and everything in the NT are conditional statements yet people deduce that somehow there is this predestination, this idea that "Jesus paid it all" That's simply not logical.
It always comes back to interpretation of the Bible, and there are so many interpretations, ambiguities, and contradictions that it is impossible to go anywhere meaningful from there with any certainty.
e.g How can you be so sure that a plural made it safely all the way from the writer to King James?
find it interesting how EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and everything in the NT are conditional statements yet people deduce that somehow there is this predestination, this idea that "Jesus paid it all" That's simply not logical.
The trouble is that it is logical but we have to fight that and believe another interpretation.
impossible to go anywhere meaningful from there with any certainty.
So true. Therein lies the reason for MY frustrations with a lot of people. People get so frustrated by trying to figure out "interpretations, ambiguities, and contradictions " that they accept something that is blatantly false instead of sincerely asking God for a true answer. God is not the author of confusion. If you can understand that these SAME "interpretations, ambiguities, and contradictions" happened WHILE JESUS walked the earth, then you can begin to realize that this is the way it was destined to be, if you read "main stream" history, Jesus and his twelve were little more then a footnote during that period, the Jewish nation was in upheaval and the Rome's new culture began contaminating the earth...it wasn't tell about 100 years later (after the fall of the first church) that "Christianity" gained popularity...and was superimposed on Paganism...you see, there have always ever been a million wrongs, and there has always ever been one right...makes you cringe to think of it that way, but its the truth
Pascal's Wager by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 29 April 2007
It's interesting you bring that up ... it reminds me of a blog I passed a few weeks ago entitled "Atheist's Wager."
Everyone is familiar (perhaps not by name) with Pascal's Wager where Blaise Pascal laid the philosophical groundwork by which many people admit they found religion - a gamble for heaven. The thought goes:
Hence, many people have followed the logical conclusion that for lack of anything else to do, you may as well believe in god. (As a sidenote, this choice disgusts me as a ridiculous notion - if the god were real, I would certainly hope he sees through such your facade and lets you burn in hell right next to me).
Moving on. The Atheist Wager, looks at the implications of such a decision making tree and what it tells you about your god. It relies on the Pascal's premise that if you don't believe and god exists, that you go to hell. Now, what if you are born into another religion and raised as such by your parents. It's all you know and you're not exposed to anything else (case in point - see discussion "Can you explain why you don't believe in other gods?"). It follows that you aren't going to arbitrarily change your faith.
Therefore, if you're born into the "wrong religion" you go to hell. What sort of god is so fickle that he would damn good, innocent people of alternate circumstances to an eternity of misery? What sort of god is all powerful yet fails to make his existence clearly irrefutable such that people cease worshipping the wrong diety? What sort of god is all powerful yet fails to make his existence clearly irrefutable such that people of different faiths continue to slaughter each other in his name? What sort of god is all powerful (and allegedly loving) yet has a bouncer checking names against a disparate virtues list (as evidenced by multiple religions and their variations of morality) for admittance to the eternal party?
The Atheist Wager is therefore:
RE: Pascal's Wager by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 29 April 2007
QUOTE: Therefore, if you're born into the "wrong religion" you go to hell
You might want to read the bible (or at least research this assumption) before making statements like this. There is no where in the bible that this idea exists - in fact it's quite the opposite. All those who have been exposed to Christianity and have turned a blind eye to it are at risk of going to Hell. Those that have never been exposed to it are in no way at risk. Why do you think that so many different Christian religions have Ministries? It's to bring the word of God to those that have not yet heard it.
Research before you comment - it makes you look smarter.
RE: Pascal's Wager by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 29 April 2007
Research before you comment - it makes you look smarter.
You can "look" smarter all you want. Ultimately, your god is still damning people for not believing in him if, as you say, they've been exposed to some knowledge about him.
You are, as typical, looking at this from the perspective of only your religion. Why would a die hard Hindu want to convert to Christianity? You're saying that because a book written by man says you're damnable for exposure, that a Hindi A is immune to Hell so long as he never comes into contact with Christianity while Hindi B happens to meet a Christian tourist that spouts off at the mouth about Jesus. Now, Hindi B, who was perfectly content before, is going to hell.
Fool please. "Rules" written by man are ignominious at best. If they don't believe, then they don't believe. So just face it, they're going to hell. Your Hindu co-workers. Hell bound. Your Taoist co-workers. Hell bound. And for what? Because an all powerful god with all the ability to make things clear ... chooses not to. Instead, allowing people born into the "wrong faith" to continue down that path.
You talk of exposure to Christianity like all of a sudden a light should turn on and a person will say, "Well, duh, what the hell have I been wasting my time as a Hindu all these years for." Ask yourself this, what would it take for a Hindu to convert you? You take it for granted that someone can become like you but never really consider the implications of what that decision means for them. Everything you must wrestle with to admit that your god may not exist, that if you choose poorly you may go to hell and the persecution you will receive from your current faith for turning on them ... that is what your converts face. And most of them won't do it for the very reason you won't.
Is that a damnable offense?
Reason before you comment - it makes you look smarter.
RE: Pascal's Wager by acer123 :: NR0 :: on 29 April 2007
Your points are well taken. You are very rooted in your beliefs, as am I, and as is Hindi A. I am confident that I have not the ability to open either of your hearts to my God. However, though I fail I argue that this shouldn't assist you in solidifying your beliefs. I would ask that you seek someone much more intelligent in this area then me.
With that said, I consider your comment "what would it take for a Hindu to convert you" and I reflect on it. I firmly believe that nothing would persuade me. Why then would he be persuaded into my religion? I repeat myself: I am not the one to enter into this argument because I don't have the skill set to intelligently speak, but I do hold the personal belief firm in my heart that the power of the word of God, as spoken through a believer, opens the hearts and ears of those that will listen. It is to this end that I would argue that Hindi A would never be able to convert me. His words do not have the same power as God's.
I would like to apologize for my "Research before you comment" statement - it was unfair to you. Maybe a better one would be:
Reflect before you comment - it makes you look smarter
RE: Pascal's Wager by Occams :: NR6 :: on 30 April 2007
"Research before you comment - it makes you look smarter.''''''''
My objective is not to look smarter to people with closed minds. If you read the article in the link below the opener as I did, you would not have denigrated my research. I bet it was too hard for you to understand - as it was for me. I will respond in true nerd fashion by bombarding you with my research which will make great demands on your intelligence and indeed on your own bible research. Enjoy!
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=204
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=193
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=188
The bible is not the sole source of truth in religion. That was only a notion created by Luther as a vehicle for attacking corruption in the Catholic Church. There have been many other valid teachers since John bit the dust.
It must be presumed that you have ignored the question posed because, for all your certainty and bible reading, you can't begin answer it. I suspect that you are afaid to admit so because of the investments you have put into your belief sack which has this great gaping hole at the bottom.
RE: Pascal's Wager by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 May 2007
Under this assumption, would it not be nicer if the church did not bring people into contact with Christianity? Options: come in contact and believe or go to hell... Don't come into contact and then you must be bad to go to hell - or do all that have been lucky enough to avoid contact with Christianity go to heaven?
Summary: destroy Christianity and every one goes to heaven? Seems to good to be true... is it the basis of the soviet state?
RE: Pascal's Wager by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 29 April 2007
Before I get started, I must agree with you; Pascal's Wager is a cop-out.
Moving on...
You have many assumptions about things like hell, damnation, the nature of God, etc. that don't reflect my beliefs, so (although I'm Christian) I don't feel as if you're arguing against me. In fact, many of the issues you have which question the justice and motivations of God given the circumstances of life seem to play directly into my "religious hand," so to speak. I won't get deep into them right now, but here are a couple of thoughts:
That's all for now, I guess. There are a lot of other things I'd like to say about specific doctrines, but I think laying this foundation is important.
RE: Pascal's Wager by Occams :: NR6 :: on 30 April 2007
Sensible comment and a good start, but still a long way from answering the question posed.
I think you are saying that the idea of God's omnipotence was created at the Council of Nicea - which was in about AD 400. Certainly a lot of things were decided at that particular multi-lateral meeting because it is said that Constantine locked the delegates in a room and refused to let them out until their disputes were settled. That is where they narrowed down to allowing only the familiar four (apostle ?) gospels in the New Testament.
Thanks, this is news to me. I really did think that all Christians believed that He is omnipotent. Of course I accept the constraint on him (expressed so well in another response) that He cannot do something that contradicts itself - trivially; like making a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift. That is not a reflection on the Power of God but on the limitations of of language.
However, a very simple question was posed. Why was it necessary to sacrifice Jesus. Who made that rule? No answers forthcoming yet!
RE: Pascal's Wager by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 30 April 2007
I believe God is omnipotent, just not in the way defined at Nicaea. To me, omnipotence is being able to do everything that is possible, just as omniscience is knowing all that can be known. This excludes, in the latter case, things such as infallible knowledge of the future acts of free agents
This leads nicely into your question concerning the necessity of Christ's "sacrifice." Simply put, it allowed humanity to overcome two deaths: physical and spiritual. Through Christ's resurrection, all will be resurrected. Through his atonement, all who repent can be forgiven. In this way, God's justice and mercy remain intact. (See resources listed under each term here for further information. Let me know if you have questions.)