PDA

View Full Version : Why Did Jesus Have to Die?



The Pixie
04-21-2015, 05:28 AM
This is something I have never understood, so I am wondering if anyone can help me. There are plenty of glib answers, such as "it was part of God's plan", but that just raises the question of why it was part of God's plan. Why did God engineer the world so that Jesus' death did what it did? Many web sites purport to address this, but none I have found give any illumination.

https://www.gci.org/disc/07-whydie
Jesus said, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). He came to give his life, to die, and his death would result in salvation for others. This was the reason he came to earth. His blood was poured out for others (Matthew 26:28).

Okay... But who was this ransom paid to? To God! So God sacrificed himself to pay a ransom that God demanded from himself. Does that actually make sense to anyone?

https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/why-did-jesus-have-die-our-sins
The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1 ,14; Col. 2:9), and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.

According to this web page, God was only able to forgive us if he first sacrificed himself. I can forgive people without anyone dying, but apparently God cannot. And he is the one who is all-powerful. If you are going to assert that it is different for God, do please say how. And why!

I will add this one too as a great illustration of not answering the question.
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-on-the-cross

Sea of red
04-21-2015, 06:30 AM
This should be fun.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 06:34 AM
Jesus became Incarnate and died so that, in the resurrection, he could show that death had been defeated.

From the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom:
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen! “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?” Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen! Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen, and life reigns! Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb! For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

A ransom is typically paid to the one holding others captive - which would be Satan, not God. In a sense, Satan got paid, but couldn't handle the payment.

Adrift
04-21-2015, 06:46 AM
Jesus became Incarnate and died so that, in the resurrection, he could show that death had been defeated.

From the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom:
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen! “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?” Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen! Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen, and life reigns! Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb! For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

A ransom is typically paid to the one holding others captive - which would be Satan, not God. In a sense, Satan got paid, but couldn't handle the payment.

You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.

Christianbookworm
04-21-2015, 06:47 AM
Jesus became Incarnate and died so that, in the resurrection, he could show that death had been defeated.

From the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom:
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen! “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?” Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen! Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen, and life reigns! Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb! For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

A ransom is typically paid to the one holding others captive - which would be Satan, not God. In a sense, Satan got paid, but couldn't handle the payment.

What about the honor-shame principle? That Jesus died a shameful death to make up for our shameful acts? I know the last sentence is an oversimplification(maybe) of jpholding's argument at his website.

Christianbookworm
04-21-2015, 06:49 AM
You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.

That's why I'm not telling Pixie. I'm talking to other Christians and reasonable Christians only about the answer to Pixie's "question". Let's just say Pixie has a poor track record of being a baiter and not an honest seeker.

Christianbookworm
04-21-2015, 07:01 AM
To OneBadPig and any other Christian, what do y'all think of this vid? Since I am not trying to make an argument, fundy atheists should not watch this video! Or anyone that would take offense. That means Pixie should not attept watching this video. Because I am not going to give him any calcium carbonate spheres.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqNomGAL94&feature=player_detailpage

seer
04-21-2015, 07:08 AM
CS Lewis


We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.

Yttrium
04-21-2015, 07:12 AM
Okay... But who was this ransom paid to? To God! So God sacrificed himself to pay a ransom that God demanded from himself. Does that actually make sense to anyone?


Jesus' death makes some sense to me if Jesus isn't God. But although that line of thinking seems to me to be compatible with the Bible, it's not allowed under Christianity.

Chrawnus
04-21-2015, 07:18 AM
But although that line of thinking seems to me to be compatible with the Bible . . .

It's not. :tongue:

Yttrium
04-21-2015, 07:20 AM
It's not. :tongue:

Yeah, you would say that, you Christian you. :ahem:

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 07:35 AM
What about the honor-shame principle? That Jesus died a shameful death to make up for our shameful acts? I know the last sentence is an oversimplification(maybe) of jpholding's argument at his website.
That could help explain why his death was shameful.

hamster
04-21-2015, 07:35 AM
I can forgive people without anyone dying,

That's because you make your own meaning. You invest importance in other gestures, rituals, ideas, etc. Personally I might forgive someone if I knew they felt a little shame or regret, but I'm not an omniscient super-being. I can only see a few feet in front of me by candlelight when it comes to the impact/importance of good and evil. I can't see how the results of an action ripple outward through the ages, permanently affecting everything and everyone around me, visible and invisible, until the end of time. God, who wrote the setting we all live in, suggests that something dying and spilling its blood is an appropriate representation of the situation's gravity. Given that he's the architect of the universe, including the minds of every living thing, it's kind of futile to disagree. When I make my own universe I'll probably just require running laps or something but I'm not that holy so offending me is not really a big deal.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 07:42 AM
You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.

:shrug: Could be. On the other hand, many Christians do believe in accordance with the points he's raising, and that should be corrected.

Chrawnus
04-21-2015, 07:44 AM
Yeah, you would say that, you Christian you. :ahem:

Because it's true. :yes:

Cerebrum123
04-21-2015, 07:45 AM
That's because you make your own meaning. You invest importance in other gestures, rituals, ideas, etc. Personally I might forgive someone if I knew they felt a little shame or regret, but I'm not an omniscient super-being. I can only see a few feet in front of me by candlelight when it comes to the impact/importance of good and evil. I can't see how the results of an action ripple outward through the ages, permanently affecting everything and everyone around me, visible and invisible, until the end of time. God, who wrote the setting we all live in, suggests that something dying and spilling its blood is an appropriate representation of the situation's gravity. Given that he's the architect of the universe, including the minds of every living thing, it's kind of futile to disagree. When I make my own universe I'll probably just require running laps or something but I'm not that holy so offending me is not really a big deal.

Since when did you become a Mormon? :huh:


:outtie:

The Pixie
04-21-2015, 07:48 AM
Jesus became Incarnate and died so that, in the resurrection, he could show that death had been defeated.
So it did not defeat death, but instead showed that death had already been defeated?

I have to admit to not coming across this pointof view before, so I do wonder if I am misunderstanding, but it does seem to make sense. So when was death defeated? How? Why did God have to defeat death anyway?

hamster
04-21-2015, 07:50 AM
Since when did you become a Mormon? :huh:


:outtie:

All those habitable planets in the universe I'm only asking for one to screw around with

The Pixie
04-21-2015, 07:51 AM
You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.
Why do you believe that? Do I have a history of starting "bait" threads or trolling? Or is it that the question cuts to the heart of Christianity, and actually no one knows why Jesus had to die?

The Pixie
04-21-2015, 07:53 AM
What about the honor-shame principle? That Jesus died a shameful death to make up for our shameful acts? I know the last sentence is an oversimplification(maybe) of jpholding's argument at his website.
But how does that actually work? Why does one person dying shamefully impact on someone onthe other side of the world?

Why did God engineer a system such that someone has to die shamefully for another person? Why not engineer a system where God can just say "I forgive you" to forgive people for their shameful acts.

Cerebrum123
04-21-2015, 07:54 AM
All those habitable planets in the universe I'm only asking for one to screw around with

You said "When I make my own universe". :tongue:

hamster
04-21-2015, 07:54 AM
multiverse theory...

The Pixie
04-21-2015, 07:54 AM
To OneBadPig and any other Christian, what do y'all think of this vid? Since I am not trying to make an argument, fundy atheists should not watch this video! Or anyone that would take offense. That means Pixie should not attept watching this video. Because I am not going to give him any calcium carbonate spheres.
If you insist. I think arguing by video is vacuous (if you have an argument, say it for yourself; in fact I think there are forum rules about that), so I doubt I would have bothered to watch anyway.

Cerebrum123
04-21-2015, 08:00 AM
If you insist. I think arguing by video is vacuous (if you have an argument, say it for yourself; in fact I think there are forum rules about that), so I doubt I would have bothered to watch anyway.

She wasn't arguing against you. She was asking the opinion of others in the thread about that video. I think she summed up the argument in a previous post too.

The Pixie
04-21-2015, 08:02 AM
That's because you make your own meaning. You invest importance in other gestures, rituals, ideas, etc. Personally I might forgive someone if I knew they felt a little shame or regret, but I'm not an omniscient super-being. I can only see a few feet in front of me by candlelight when it comes to the impact/importance of good and evil. I can't see how the results of an action ripple outward through the ages, permanently affecting everything and everyone around me, visible and invisible, until the end of time. God, who wrote the setting we all live in, suggests that something dying and spilling its blood is an appropriate representation of the situation's gravity. Given that he's the architect of the universe, including the minds of every living thing, it's kind of futile to disagree. When I make my own universe I'll probably just require running laps or something but I'm not that holy so offending me is not really a big deal.
I seem to agree with each sentence, I am struggling to get the whole, though. In summary you seem to be saying that God, being the ultimate holy, is extremely upset when we sin, and so decided that the only way to show us just how terrible it is was for him to become incarnate and to die on the cross. That said, you do mention running laps, so at the same time this is a punishment, but I cannot get that to fit in to the rest - not least of all because God punished himself, not the perpetrators. You say you would make perpetrators run laps instead; what you suggest is harsher for the perpetrators.

Adrift
04-21-2015, 08:06 AM
Why do you believe that? Do I have a history of starting "bait" threads or trolling?

Yes.

robertb
04-21-2015, 08:22 AM
In the second century, it was preached by some that the death of the Christ was a ransom paid to the demiurge by God. If you recall, the god of the Jews (the creator, or demiurge) demanded sacrifice, but by taking the Christ as sacrifice, the demiurge gave up dominion over its creation. Not really kosher, but does deal with the sacrificing himself to appease himself objection.

shunyadragon
04-21-2015, 08:23 AM
You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.

True, but it could be interesting if one comes up with something other then canned Traditional Christian answers, which I may later.

Sea of red
04-21-2015, 08:28 AM
Yes.
I don't think he's trolling. He just wants to pick-up where he left off in some previous debate but decided to just start over. Don't get me wrong, it grinds my nerves when a thread gets started that covers things discussed a million times before.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 09:33 AM
So it did not defeat death, but instead showed that death had already been defeated?

I have to admit to not coming across this pointof view before, so I do wonder if I am misunderstanding, but it does seem to make sense. So when was death defeated? How?
During the harrowing of hell, which took place between Jesus' burial and resurrection (Eph. 4:7-10, Mark 3:27). This would require Jesus to be in more than one place at once, which is an attribute of God (omnipresence). This is elaborated in an Orthodox hymn at Easter: "In the grave with the body / but in hades with the soul as God / in paradise with the thief / and on the throne (in heaven) with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, / filling all things, yourself uncircumscribed."

Why did God have to defeat death anyway?
Although God allowed humanity to choose death, we were created for eternal life (1 Cor 15:21-23). However, we could not defeat death on our own, having become slaves to sin (Romans 6).

Sparko
04-21-2015, 11:19 AM
Here is how I understand it, simplified.

God is perfect.
God is just.
Sin is rebellion against God.
God must punish sin in order to remain just.
But God is merciful too. He came to earth (God the Son) to give us a way out.
Jesus lived a sinless and righteous life.
Jesus took the punishment we deserved for our sin during his death so that we do not have to pay it ourselves.
This way God is both Just and Merciful.



Romans 3
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

shunyadragon
04-21-2015, 11:43 AM
True, but it could be interesting if one comes up with something other then canned Traditional Christian answers, which I may later.

I intended to say maybe true. Trolling would more harsh to say the least. The intent to insult, deceive, slander, and abuse, are more Trollish stuff.

whag
04-21-2015, 01:54 PM
You realize this is just a bait thread, right? He doesn't really care.

No one cares at the level you want or expect. Someone like OBP responds, seeing it as a legit question, and you act like a dyspeptic martyr, warning your brethren not to cast pearls before the uncaring heathen.

whag
04-21-2015, 02:08 PM
Here is how I understand it, simplified.

God is perfect.
God is just.
Sin is rebellion against God.
God must punish sin in order to remain just.
But God is merciful too. He came to earth (God the Son) to give us a way out.
Jesus lived a sinless and righteous life.
Jesus took the punishment we deserved for our sin during his death so that we do not have to pay it ourselves.
This way God is both Just and Merciful.



Romans 3
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The huge logical flaw here being teleological in nature. Human beings weren't designed with the capacity to be perfect, so their imperfection is both expected and not their fault. The question that eludes a satisfactory answer is why God is upset by a set of circumstances any anthropologist could have predicted given our wild, inherently imperfect nature. Remember, God expected perfection. If he didn't, then what's the problem?

IOW, would you care to wager that the same environment with the same species possessing the same capacity would fare any better for millions of generations on another planet? I certainly wouldn't.

whag
04-21-2015, 02:16 PM
Jesus became Incarnate and died so that, in the resurrection, he could show that death had been defeated.

From the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom:
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen! “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?” Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen! Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen, and life reigns! Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb! For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

A ransom is typically paid to the one holding others captive - which would be Satan, not God. In a sense, Satan got paid, but couldn't handle the payment.

Overwhelming payment aside, why would God be beholden to pay anything, especially a ransom that's traditionally described as agonizing to all members of the trinity. The ransom may have overwhelmed Satan, but it also delivered tremendous satisfaction by way of the hurt it inflicted on God. McGrath once even had the temerity to say God literally knows what it's like to lose a son. I don't think so, but, if true, is that not points to Satan for effecting hurt of that magnitude? Wasn't he just a lowly angel?

There's something very strange about the interaction between God and Satan. The leeway God gives Satan--the time of day he gives the devil--seems kinda nuts if it's real.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 02:29 PM
Overwhelming payment aside, why would God be beholden to pay anything, especially a ransom that's traditionally described as agonizing to all members of the trinity. The ransom may have overwhelmed Satan, but it also delivered tremendous satisfaction by way of the hurt it inflicted on God. McGrath once even had the temerity to say God literally knows what it's like to lose a son. I don't think so, but, if true, is that not points to Satan for effecting hurt of that magnitude? Wasn't he just a lowly angel?

There's something very strange about the interaction between God and Satan. The leeway God gives Satan--the time of day he gives the devil--seems kinda nuts if it's real.
Try reading my post again for what it actually says, not what you imagine it says, and get back to me.

whag
04-21-2015, 02:41 PM
Try reading my post again for what it actually says, not what you imagine it says, and get back to me.

I understood it just fine. Get back to me when you can tackle the questions it inspired.

shunyadragon
04-21-2015, 03:20 PM
Try reading my post again for what it actually says, not what you imagine it says, and get back to me.

Whag proposes some interesting questions that need to be addressed.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 06:12 PM
Overwhelming payment aside, why would God be beholden to pay anything, especially a ransom that's traditionally described as agonizing to all members of the trinity.
Since when is it so described? Even the Son was only affected in His humanity, not His deity. God was only beholden to His own promise to set things right.

The ransom may have overwhelmed Satan, but it also delivered tremendous satisfaction by way of the hurt it inflicted on God.
Which, as rather temporary and limited to the Son in His humanity, ain't nothin' compared to the defeat inflicted on Satan at his imagined moment of victory.

McGrath once even had the temerity to say God literally knows what it's like to lose a son. I don't think so, but, if true, is that not points to Satan for effecting hurt of that magnitude? Wasn't he just a lowly angel?
I disagree with McGrath. I'm not into answering hypotheticals with which I disagree.

There's something very strange about the interaction between God and Satan. The leeway God gives Satan--the time of day he gives the devil--seems kinda nuts if it's real.
:shrug: Satan can do more than God allows him to, which is doubtless galling.

JimL
04-21-2015, 09:04 PM
If you actually read the bible, this whole idea of the sacrificial lamb, the savior, is just ridiculous nonsense. According to the bible we are determined creatures, predestined by our creator to fulfill the roles he engineered us to fulfill. So why would Jesus need to die, need to be sacrificed, in order to save us from the evils that God programed us to do in the first place? I could see why God would punish himself, being that he is both the judge and the guilty party, but it is silly to argue that God had himself crucified in order to redeem his own blameless predestined creations.

whag
04-21-2015, 11:05 PM
Since when is it so described? Even the Son was only affected in His humanity, not His deity. God was only beholden to His own promise to set things right.

Jesus wasn't agonized? The Father wasn't also agonized over Jesus' agony? you do raise a good point about the Holy Spirit not ever being described in this way, though the Holy Spirit is never described as being any less feeling and empathetic as the father and son. Why would he lack those attributes?


Which, as rather temporary and limited to the Son in His humanity, ain't nothin' compared to the defeat inflicted on Satan at his imagined moment of victory.

Easy to say it ain't nothin but perhaps Satan relishes in that infliction for eternity. And you really think that Satan has an imagined moment of victory? You really think he's that stupid?



I disagree with McGrath. I'm not into answering hypotheticals with which I disagree.

:shrug: Satan can do more than God allows him to, which is doubtless galling.

I don't think it's true that Christianity says Satan can do more than God permits.

The Pixie
04-22-2015, 12:20 AM
During the harrowing of hell, which took place between Jesus' burial and resurrection (Eph. 4:7-10, Mark 3:27). This would require Jesus to be in more than one place at once, which is an attribute of God (omnipresence). This is elaborated in an Orthodox hymn at Easter: "In the grave with the body / but in hades with the soul as God / in paradise with the thief / and on the throne (in heaven) with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, / filling all things, yourself uncircumscribed."
I took a look at the verses you cite. They do not offer much support to your position.

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”
9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

This certainly supports Jesus visiting hell, but gives no suggestion of death being defeated at that time. The verse in Mark is even more contentious, so I have quoted some context.

Mark 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

Verses 22 to 26 are Jesus explaining why it is stupid to suppose that a man possessed of a demon could cast out demons, which is what the scribes accused him of. In this context, we can see that the "strong man" in verse 27 is Satan, and Jesus is plundering his goods (i.e., stealing Satan's people by casting the demons out of them). Jesus is showing his power over Satan by showing that he can bind Satan (the strong man), which allows him to plunder Satan's house. That could refer to Jesus visiting hell to rescue captives, as per 1 Peter 3 and and Ephesians 4, but it could just refer to freeing people of Satan by casting out demons.

And either way, I see nothing here to suggest death was defeated at all. I note that the hymn you quote also says nothing about defeating death.

Although God allowed humanity to choose death, we were created for eternal life (1 Cor 15:21-23). However, we could not defeat death on our own, having become slaves to sin (Romans 6).
In what sense did God allow humanity to choose death? Do you mean he gave Adam the choice of life and death, except he kept secret the life and death bit? Kind of like a game show where the contestant has to choose a box, either the red one or the blue; one box has the keys to a luxury car, the other has the booby prize. the contestant does not know which is which, so he chooses blue because it is his favourite colour. He opens it to find the booby prize. Did the contestant freely choose the booby prize? I would say no.

I can accept that man cannot defeat death, but why did God wait so long? He could have defeated death as soon as it entered the world. Indeed, he could have engineered the world so that it was impossible for death to enter. Instead he created a world that was vulnerable to death in the certain knowledge that death would enter it. This is where it all sounds a bit contrived, it stops making sense.

Tiburon
04-22-2015, 02:21 AM
But how does that actually work? Why does one person dying shamefully impact on someone onthe other side of the world?

Why did God engineer a system such that someone has to die shamefully for another person? Why not engineer a system where God can just say "I forgive you" to forgive people for their shameful acts.

People like drama. So it had to be something dramatic and significant.

Sparko
04-22-2015, 06:14 AM
The huge logical flaw here being teleological in nature. Human beings weren't designed with the capacity to be perfect, so their imperfection is both expected and not their fault. The question that eludes a satisfactory answer is why God is upset by a set of circumstances any anthropologist could have predicted given our wild, inherently imperfect nature. Remember, God expected perfection. If he didn't, then what's the problem?

IOW, would you care to wager that the same environment with the same species possessing the same capacity would fare any better for millions of generations on another planet? I certainly wouldn't.

It is not a flaw. God didn't design people to be imperfect sinners. He made them to be sinless and able to remain so, but he also gave them free will to make the choice themselves. They only became imperfect sinners after Adam and Eve chose to sin. Think of it like a person who is not addicted to heroin, but he has a choice to take it or not. He decides to take it and from that point on, he is addicted to it and can't stop taking it. Sin is like that, but the addiction is passed on to newer generations. Again, this is a simplified analogy, so please don't try to argue stuff like rehab centers and etc.

One Bad Pig
04-22-2015, 06:21 AM
Jesus wasn't agonized?
As man, he was agonized.

The Father wasn't also agonized over Jesus' agony? you do raise a good point about the Holy Spirit not ever being described in this way, though the Holy Spirit is never described as being any less feeling and empathetic as the father and son. Why would he lack those attributes?
Ever hear of the concept of divine impassibility?


Easy to say it ain't nothin but perhaps Satan relishes in that infliction for eternity.
As he's in eternal torment? Lawl.

And you really think that Satan has an imagined moment of victory? You really think he's that stupid?
I think that Satan cannot see the future, and he had just seen the incarnation of his enemy killed in humiliating fashion. You don't think he'd gloat over that?


I don't think it's true that Christianity says Satan can do more than God permits.
:doh: I left out a negative.

One Bad Pig
04-22-2015, 06:32 AM
I took a look at the verses you cite. They do not offer much support to your position.

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”
9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

This certainly supports Jesus visiting hell, but gives no suggestion of death being defeated at that time.
He led forth those who were held captive by death in hades; death could no longer hold them, hence death was defeated.

The verse in Mark is even more contentious, so I have quoted some context.

Mark 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

Verses 22 to 26 are Jesus explaining why it is stupid to suppose that a man possessed of a demon could cast out demons, which is what the scribes accused him of. In this context, we can see that the "strong man" in verse 27 is Satan, and Jesus is plundering his goods (i.e., stealing Satan's people by casting the demons out of them). Jesus is showing his power over Satan by showing that he can bind Satan (the strong man), which allows him to plunder Satan's house. That could refer to Jesus visiting hell to rescue captives, as per 1 Peter 3 and and Ephesians 4, but it could just refer to freeing people of Satan by casting out demons.
The grave is Satan's house.

I note that the hymn you quote also says nothing about defeating death.
I wasn't using the hymn to support that contention. The predominant Easter hymn is "Christ is risen from the dead, / trampling down death by [his] death, / and to those in the tombs bestowing life."


In what sense did God allow humanity to choose death? Do you mean he gave Adam the choice of life and death, except he kept secret the life and death bit? Kind of like a game show where the contestant has to choose a box, either the red one or the blue; one box has the keys to a luxury car, the other has the booby prize. the contestant does not know which is which, so he chooses blue because it is his favourite colour. He opens it to find the booby prize. Did the contestant freely choose the booby prize? I would say no.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


I can accept that man cannot defeat death, but why did God wait so long? He could have defeated death as soon as it entered the world. Indeed, he could have engineered the world so that it was impossible for death to enter. Instead he created a world that was vulnerable to death in the certain knowledge that death would enter it. This is where it all sounds a bit contrived, it stops making sense.
How is your proposal any less contrived?

Pytharchimedes
04-22-2015, 04:08 PM
As I see it, Jesus died for, as in because of, our debased dispositions...the most damning examples that lead to his death being; jealousy, envy, and the lust for power. Would he have died if we as humans were not so commonly degenerate?

Who knows.

JimL
04-22-2015, 04:39 PM
As I see it, Jesus died for, as in because of, our debased dispositions...the most damning examples that lead to his death being; jealousy, envy, and the lust for power. Would he have died if we as humans were not so commonly degenerate?

Who knows.
As I said previously, according to the Bible, Gods creations are determined and have no say, no free will.
1) Acts 13:48
2) Romans 8:29-30
3) 2 Timothy 1:9
4) Ephesians 1:4-5
5) 2 Thessalonians 2:13
6) Jude 4

And there is nothing we can do about it.
Romans 9:11-22

So what would be the point of a sacrificial lamb in order to save those whom God has already pre-determined to be saved?

Pytharchimedes
04-22-2015, 04:45 PM
As I said previously, according to the Bible, Gods creations are determined and have no say, no free will.
1) Acts 13:48
2) Romans 8:29-30
3) 2 Timothy 1:9
4) Ephesians 1:4-5
5) 2 Thessalonians 2:13
6) Jude 4

And there is nothing we can do about it.
Romans 9:11-22

So what would be the point of a sacrificial lamb in order to save those whom God has already pre-determined to be saved?

I regard the spoken word of Jesus highly(the red stuff to the layman), the Gospels fairly, and the rest of the Bible as apocrypha. Even the spoken word of Jesus I must test with my spirit, whilst in a state of my purest honesty.

I am rather affectionate with the Gospel of John, maybe you can convince me with some passages from his record? Give it a go?

Truthseeker
04-22-2015, 06:17 PM
As I said previously, according to the Bible, Gods creations are determined and have no say, no free will.
1) Acts 13:48
2) Romans 8:29-30
3) 2 Timothy 1:9
4) Ephesians 1:4-5
5) 2 Thessalonians 2:13
6) Jude 4

And there is nothing we can do about it.
Romans 9:11-22

So what would be the point of a sacrificial lamb in order to save those whom God has already pre-determined to be saved?That is something like a defense of Calvinism.

I do not know why God chose to create the universe that way. It's like my not understanding why Picasso created Guernica the famous painting in that way.

The Pixie
04-23-2015, 12:19 AM
He led forth those who were held captive by death in hades; death could no longer hold them, hence death was defeated.
Okay, that is consistent with the verse, but the verse does not say death was defeated. That is something extra you are adding to the text. You might be correct, but if your theory is based on this slim evidence, then you may well be wrong.

The grave is Satan's house.
Again, this is quite a reach. The context is people possessed by demons not people who are dead. You could be right, but it is not the natural interpretation of the text.

I wasn't using the hymn to support that contention. The predominant Easter hymn is "Christ is risen from the dead, / trampling down death by [his] death, / and to those in the tombs bestowing life."
Fair enough.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Okay.

And God engineered the universe so that when Adam inevitably (from God's perspective of being omniscient) chose death, he chose death for all of us?

How is your proposal any less contrived?
Because God is usually portrayed as all-loving, and so would want to minimise man's suffering, and so would want to defeat death at the earliest opportunity. He so loved the world that he sent his own son, but he did not love the world enough to do it right after Adam ate the fruit apparently.

Why cause so much death in the Noachian Flood, if he was intending to defeat death 15 centuries later?

Why not engineer a universe where Adam eating a fruit does not allow death in the first place? Is that beyond God's abilities? If so, he he beholden to some greater laws?

Why do people still die, if death is defeated? I expect the answer might have something to do with spiritual death (and indeed Adam had a spiritual death after eating the fruit), but then this has to be fitted with Jesus rescuing captives from the grave, which sounds like physical death, and indeed the resurrection, which from the gospel accounts was physical (Jesus was seen eating fish, etc.).

Sparko
04-23-2015, 06:51 AM
When the bible speaks of death being defeated, it is contrasting eternal death (damnation) with eternal life (salvation)


You really should take an hour and read the book of Romans.

The Pixie
04-23-2015, 07:03 AM
When the bible speaks of death being defeated, it is contrasting eternal death (damnation) with eternal life (salvation)
So when God said to Adam that Adam would die that day, when he meant was that Adam (and the entire human race) would earn damnation, not that he would actually die? And then the snake comes along, and points out that actually Adam would not die, which was true, because God actually meant damnation?

When people say Jesus defeated death, when they really mean damnation, why do they not say Jesus defeated damnation instead?

When One Bag Pig said "The grave is Satan's house", does the grave imply physical death or damnation? I though the verses were about Satan's dominion over some people (more specifically demonic possession), which seems to fit the damnation idea pretty well.

You really should take an hour and read the book of Romans.
Thanks, yes. I have read it, but I admit it was a few years ago. I will reread in in the light of death meaning damnation.

Sparko
04-23-2015, 07:12 AM
So when God said to Adam that Adam would die that day, when he meant was that Adam (and the entire human race) would earn damnation, not that he would actually die? And then the snake comes along, and points out that actually Adam would not die, which was true, because God actually meant damnation? yup.


When people say Jesus defeated death, when they really mean damnation, why do they not say Jesus defeated damnation instead? Isn't that what OBP pretty much said "harrowing hell"

Jesus came to give eternal life. Which means that those who do not accept him have eternal death, or damnation.


When One Bag Pig said "The grave is Satan's house", does the grave imply physical death or damnation? I though the verses were about Satan's dominion over some people (more specifically demonic possession), which seems to fit the damnation idea pretty well.I will let OBP answer himself.


Thanks, yes. I have read it, but I admit it was a few years ago. I will reread in in the light of death meaning damnation. The word death can mean physical death or eternal death. It depends on the context.



John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;

One Bad Pig
04-23-2015, 07:32 AM
So when God said to Adam that Adam would die that day, when he meant was that Adam (and the entire human race) would earn damnation, not that he would actually die? And then the snake comes along, and points out that actually Adam would not die, which was true, because God actually meant damnation?
Except Adam DID die - just not right away.


When people say Jesus defeated death, when they really mean damnation, why do they not say Jesus defeated damnation instead?
Damnation is eternal death.

When One Bag Pig said "The grave is Satan's house", does the grave imply physical death or damnation?
Yes.

I though the verses were about Satan's dominion over some people (more specifically demonic possession), which seems to fit the damnation idea pretty well.
If you keep reading in Matthew 12 down to verses 43-45 (or in Luke 11 down to verses 24-25), it seems less fitting. The binding of the strong man would then relate more properly to Jesus' words regarding the kingdom of God; casting out demons by the word of God is merely evidence of the coming kingdom.

whag
04-23-2015, 02:44 PM
As man, he was agonized.

Ever hear of the concept of divine impassibility?

Yes, as well as the problems with it.


I think that Satan cannot see the future, and he had just seen the incarnation of his enemy killed in humiliating fashion. You don't think he'd gloat over that?

He knew the future in the same way you supposedly know it:

Matthew 8:29

"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

whag
04-23-2015, 02:49 PM
If you keep reading in Matthew 12 down to verses 43-45 (or in Luke 11 down to verses 24-25), it seems less fitting. The binding of the strong man would then relate more properly to Jesus' words regarding the kingdom of God; casting out demons by the word of God is merely evidence of the coming kingdom.

That was 2,000 years ago. How could exorcism portend a coming kingdom that long ago when it's not even taking place today?

The Pixie
04-23-2015, 11:48 PM
Isn't that what OBP pretty much said "harrowing hell"
My poinmt is that when Christians say Jesus defeated death, they do not actually mean death as the word is commonly understood, they mean damnation.

So why not say "damnation"?

Jesus came to give eternal life. Which means that those who do not accept him have eternal death, or damnation.
In my dictionary, death and damnation are two different things.

Jesus did not defeat death as it is commonly understood. We know that because people are still dying - as the word "dying" is commonly understood.

The word death can mean physical death or eternal death. It depends on the context.
Which is a convenient way of building ambiguity into the text.

The Pixie
04-24-2015, 12:27 AM
Except Adam DID die - just not right away.
But God said he would die that very day. He did not, he went on to twice raise a family. Further, Adam was not immoral anyway; he was going to die eventually anyway.

God said one thing, and something else happened. The way Christianity has dealt with that is to conflate damnation with death. God said Adam would die, but he meant the other sort of death, which is not really really death at all and is actually damnation. See, if we conflate death and damnation, we can explain it just fine!

Damnation is eternal death.
Why not call it damnation, and make it clear what you mean?

Do you believe the unrepentant go to hell or are they annihilated? If the former, then they suffer physical death just like the repentant, and then they could in a spiritual form just like the repentant. Why call it "eternal death" when they continue in the same form as those in eternal life?

Why not call it eternal suffering or eternal torture or eternal damnation, if that is what differentiates them from those in heaven?


When One Bag Pig said "The grave is Satan's house", does the grave imply physical death or damnation?
Yes.
Which illustrates how calling damnation "eternal death" is a wonderful aid to conflation.

If you keep reading in Matthew 12 down to verses 43-45 (or in Luke 11 down to verses 24-25), it seems less fitting. The binding of the strong man would then relate more properly to Jesus' words regarding the kingdom of God; casting out demons by the word of God is merely evidence of the coming kingdom.
I have to admit not understanding those verses.

43 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation.”

In verse 43, does "he" refer to the man or the unclean spirit? I am guessing the man, I think it would be translated as "it" if it referred to the spirit. So "passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none" is perhaps a reference to the exodus, and the Jews wandering in the desert, and is saying that the man is unhappy with nothing to do.

Verse 44 would then refer to the man returning to his old ways (the house is a metaphor for his lifestyle). But the unclean spirit has been removed, so his lifestyle (his house in the metaphor) has been sorted out.

So what does he do? He goes back to his old ways, his old lifestyle, but now even worse! Seven times worse in Jesus' hyperbole! He has not just one unclean spirit, but seven. He is worse off now than he was before, such is the miserable state of this generation.

Anyway, that is how it reads to me. You might think that it is the unclean spirit wandering (and a quick Google suggests most Christians do), in which case the house is a metaphor for the man. This seems to remove the agency of the man; he is not acting with free will, but is at the mercy of the unclean spirits, so the problem with Jesus' generation was the proliferation of unclean spirits.

It actually does not make much different to Jesus' point, which is that his generation were so terrible that when you sort one person out, he will quickly go back to his old ways, and indeed be much worse than when you started.

So how does this relate to the earlier verses? There is nothing about what happens after death, nothing about rescuing anyone from the grave. The house in this metaphor does not seem related to the earlier house metaphor as far as I can see. Can you talk me through this?

Tassman
04-24-2015, 03:41 AM
Jesus' death makes some sense to me if Jesus isn't God. But although that line of thinking seems to me to be compatible with the Bible, it's not allowed under Christianity.

But the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union hammered out at the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century firmly states that Jesus IS God and to believe otherwise resulted in severe punishment in the good ol' days. Which raises the question of why God chose to commit suicide. Couldn't the all powerful think of a better way to redeem fallen humanity, like forgiveness or something? Just a thought!

JimL
04-24-2015, 03:58 AM
I regard the spoken word of Jesus highly(the red stuff to the layman), the Gospels fairly, and the rest of the Bible as apocrypha. Even the spoken word of Jesus I must test with my spirit, whilst in a state of my purest honesty.

I am rather affectionate with the Gospel of John, maybe you can convince me with some passages from his record? Give it a go?
I'm sure that I can do that, but what would be the point. If you believe only what you choose to believe of the bible, then you don't believe the bible to be the word of God or that his words were revealed to the authors. I understand the difficulty in accepting it as the word of God, being that it is full of contradiction, but you can't accept some of it and disregard the rest.

Sparko
04-24-2015, 09:39 AM
My poinmt is that when Christians say Jesus defeated death, they do not actually mean death as the word is commonly understood, they mean damnation.

So why not say "damnation"?
Because Jesus came to give eternal life in contrast to eternal death.



In my dictionary, death and damnation are two different things.Well maybe Jesus didn't have your dictionary available.


Jesus did not defeat death as it is commonly understood. We know that because people are still dying - as the word "dying" is commonly understood.As I said, the context is the key.


Which is a convenient way of building ambiguity into the text.The bible was not written in English. It was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek in a different culture. The people understood what Jesus was saying because they lived in that culture.

The Pixie
04-24-2015, 11:38 PM
Because Jesus came to give eternal life in contrast to eternal death.

Well maybe Jesus didn't have your dictionary available.
He did not even have my language, so he did not use the word "death" when he meant damnation.

As I said, the context is the key.

The bible was not written in English. It was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek in a different culture. The people understood what Jesus was saying because they lived in that culture.
So the issue here is the translation. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, it was recorded in Greek, the ntranslated into English. Somewhere alone the way, someone chose to use the word "death" to mean "damnation". Why not use the word "damnation"?

Pytharchimedes
04-26-2015, 05:09 PM
You can't accept some of it and disregard the rest.

Yes, I can. Same way a council of Christian bishops did so when they formalized the Christian Canon 1690 years ago.

They have no authority over me.

JimL
04-26-2015, 05:18 PM
Yes, I can.
Well yes, I guess you can believe anything you want, but it really doesn't make much sense to believe that only those parts of the bible that you like are really the revealed truth simply because it is what you like.

Pytharchimedes
04-26-2015, 05:40 PM
Well yes, I guess you can believe anything you want, but it really doesn't make much sense to believe that only those parts of the bible that you like are really the revealed truth simply because it is what you like.

You have it the wrong way around, I do not accept something as revealed truth and then try and find the truth within , rather, the truth is revealed to me and I would then assign it to be divinely inspired.

For example; I thought the Bible was disproven by dinosaurs when I was a wee child, never bothered to read the thing. In my latter years though the Sermon on the Mount instantly revealed God to me, it was a profound revelation indeed. Did I then accept the whole bible as infallible? No, but I believe in the truth Jesus spoke on the hill that day.

I also accept other writings to be divinely inspired like excerpts of the Tao Te Ching, when I read that it almost seems as if someone of the same nature as Jesus is speaking, or maybe, even that Jesus read it and learned from it.

As well as many of the writings of the Stoics, enlightened writers you will find there.

JimL
04-26-2015, 06:55 PM
You have it the wrong way around, I do not accept something as revealed truth and then try and find the truth within , rather, the truth is revealed to me and I would then assign it to be divinely inspired.
But that is what I said. The bible itself is not revealed truth to you, but those parts of it that you like are!

For example; I thought the Bible was disproven by dinosaurs when I was a wee child, never bothered to read the thing. In my latter years though the Sermon on the Mount instantly revealed God to me, it was a profound revelation indeed. Did I then accept the whole bible as infallible? No, but I believe in the truth Jesus spoke on the hill that day.
Okay, so again, the bible is fallible, but you believe the parts that move you to be the word of God anyway.

I also accept other writings to be divinely inspired like excerpts of the Tao Te Ching, when I read that it almost seems as if someone of the same nature as Jesus is speaking, or maybe, even that Jesus read it and learned from it.
So your theory is that it doesn't matter what man says it, so long as what is said is Godly in your eyes, then it must have come from God. You don't think a human being capable of writing the sermon on the mount without it being revealed to him from a God?

As well as many of the writings of the Stoics, enlightened writers you will find there.
And all of their writings are inspired by God? Is that simply because you believe in God and that humans are incapable of such thoughts?

Pytharchimedes
04-26-2015, 07:26 PM
But that is what I said. The bible itself is not revealed truth to you, but those parts of it that you like are!

You did say that....I didn't.


Okay, so again, the bible is fallible, but you believe the parts that move you to be the word of God anyway.

Sure, I think the Bible is fallible, and yes, I believe parts of it are the word of God anyway....and?


So your theory is that it doesn't matter what man says it, so long as what is said is Godly in your eyes, then it must have come from God. You don't think a human being capable of writing the sermon on the mount without it being revealed to him from a God?


No, I didn't say this at all.


And all of their writings are inspired by God? Is that simply because you believe in God and that humans are incapable of such thoughts?

Not all of the writing are inspired, no different then the bible really. My belief in God somehow leads to humans being incapable? how does the belief in God correlate with the deficiencies of Man? What are you on about exactly? Seem like you have an ax to grind to be honest.

JimL
04-27-2015, 02:44 AM
You did say that....I didn't.
You said the same using different words. "I don't accept something (the bible) as revealed truth and then try to find the truth within, rather the truth (within the bible) is revevealed to me and I would then assign it to be divinely inspired." And so, only those parts of the bible that appeal to you do you accept as being the word of God, just as you believe that other philosophical writings that appeal to you must be divinely inspired.



Sure, I think the Bible is fallible, and yes, I believe parts of it are the word of God anyway....and?
And the reason that you believe parts of the bible, but not others, are divinely inspired is what?



No, I didn't say this at all.
Hmm, so what do you mean then when you say some things that men say, or write, the things that appeal to me, are divinely inspired revelations from God. For example, why do you see the sermon on the mount as divinely inspired and reject other parts of the bible?



Not all of the writing are inspired, no different then the bible really. My belief in God somehow leads to humans being incapable? how does the belief in God correlate with the deficiencies of Man? What are you on about exactly? Seem like you have an ax to grind to be honest.
Nope, no axe to grind, just curious as to how you differentiate between strictly human thoughts and divinely inspired thoughts.

Sparko
04-27-2015, 07:54 AM
He did not even have my language, so he did not use the word "death" when he meant damnation.

So the issue here is the translation. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, it was recorded in Greek, the ntranslated into English. Somewhere alone the way, someone chose to use the word "death" to mean "damnation". Why not use the word "damnation"?

So basically now you are arguing definitions and semantics? I guess you are no longer wondering why Jesus had to die if you are at the point of just picking nits. Several people have explained why he had to die, so either you really don't care, or you just used that as a way to troll.

I guess I am done here.

One Bad Pig
04-27-2015, 08:23 AM
Yes, I can. Same way a council of Christian bishops did so when they formalized the Christian Canon 1690 years ago.
This is untrue. No church-wide council ever took up the issue of canon.

Pytharchimedes
04-27-2015, 02:01 PM
This is untrue. No church-wide council ever took up the issue of canon.

Your right, I was mistaken, apparently it is a commonly held misconception about the council of Nicaea.


Misconceptions
Biblical canon
Main article: Development of the Christian biblical canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[65] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[66]

Pytharchimedes
04-27-2015, 02:20 PM
You said the same using different words. "I don't accept something (the bible) as revealed truth and then try to find the truth within, rather the truth (within the bible) is revevealed to me and I would then assign it to be divinely inspired." And so, only those parts of the bible that appeal to you do you accept as being the word of God, just as you believe that other philosophical writings that appeal to you must be divinely inspired.

Nothing "must" be divinely inspired, but I designate things that enlighten my spirit as such.


And the reason that you believe parts of the bible, but not others, are divinely inspired is what?

Because they enlighten my mind and spirit with a profound sense of God.


Hmm, so what do you mean then when you say some things that men say, or write, the things that appeal to me, are divinely inspired revelations from God. For example, why do you see the sermon on the mount as divinely inspired and reject other parts of the bible?

Like I said, I do not reject them, I label them as apocrypha. If with a single document, namely the Gospel of John, I can satisfy all my spiritual matters then I have no requirement for the others, to label them all on par with the sublime resonance of John's writings would only create confusion. I elevate the Gospel of John above all other spiritual writings and place it upon the utmost pedestal. Other scriptures/writings are useful for spiritual enlightenment of course, like I said the Stoics have some terrific stuff written about the nature of God and the universe.

The Sermon on the Mount changed my life, by opening my mind to God...so it has a special place in my life even though it is not in John's Gospel.


Nope, no axe to grind, just curious as to how you differentiate between strictly human thoughts and divinely inspired thoughts.

An hard question, best I can explain to you would be with this diagram;

6044

The thoughts that occur between C and E on the diagram are influenced by God, the same way I am enlightened with the logic of mathematics which exists between C and D, Jesus enlightens the things relating to those found between D and E.

JimL
04-27-2015, 06:38 PM
Nothing "must" be divinely inspired, but I designate things that enlighten my spirit as such.
Could you explain what you mean by "enlighten your spirit?"



Because they enlighten my mind and spirit with a profound sense of God.
Again, what do you mean exactly by enlighten your spirit? A specific example would be helpful.



Like I said, I do not reject them, I label them as apocrypha.
So you consider most of the bible as suspect, not revealed.

If with a single document, namely the Gospel of John, I can satisfy all my spiritual matters then I have no requirement for the others, to label them all on par with the sublime resonance of John's writings would only create confusion. I elevate the Gospel of John above all other spiritual writings and place it upon the utmost pedestal. Other scriptures/writings are useful for spiritual enlightenment of course, like I said the Stoics have some terrific stuff written about the nature of God and the universe.
So, belief in God and the bible is all about what ever is in it that satifies you?

The Sermon on the Mount changed my life, by opening my mind to God...so it has a special place in my life even though it is not in John's Gospel.
How so? Can you be specific? What specifically about the sermon on the mount opened your mind to God. I'm assuming that you believed in this God even though your mind was not opened to him previously to reading the passage, yes?



An hard question, best I can explain to you would be with this diagram;

6044

The thoughts that occur between C and E on the diagram are influenced by God, the same way I am enlightened with the logic of mathematics which exists between C and D, Jesus enlightens the things relating to those found between D and E.
But my question was why do you believe this. Why do you believe that dialectic thought, the exercise of reason, and the ideas elicited therein necessitate a Gods influence.

Pytharchimedes
04-27-2015, 08:17 PM
Could you explain what you mean by "enlighten your spirit?"


Again, what do you mean exactly by enlighten your spirit? A specific example would be helpful.

I thought it was obvious from what I said, in the same way that the concepts of C-D enlighten my mind, as do the concepts of D-E. This is the analogy, it is a perfect example that you should understand as you do 1+1=2.


So you consider most of the bible as suspect, not revealed.

I consider all writings suspect, but I will agree with the deepest exhortations of my soul.



So, belief in God and the bible is all about what ever is in it that satisfies you?

Yes.


How so? Can you be specific? What specifically about the sermon on the mount opened your mind to God. I'm assuming that you believed in this God even though your mind was not opened to him previously to reading the passage, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

I can not say it any better than Plato himself, I look at Socrates as a Protochrist.

I was imprisoned since childhood in the cave, like in the allegory, and it is Christ that freed me, and allowed me to see the fire. This happened due to his rapist wit, his revolutionary way of thinking, basically, his dialectic thought process, displayed in his speech on the hill.


But my question was why do you believe this. Why do you believe that dialectic thought, the exercise of reason, and the ideas elicited therein necessitate a Gods influence.

Well, I guess you have to see God to understand that, look to the allegory of the cave;


The prisoners, according to Socrates, would infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the cave had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave

Pytharchimedes
04-27-2015, 08:35 PM
Could you explain what you mean by "enlighten your spirit?"


Again, what do you mean exactly by enlighten your spirit? A specific example would be helpful.

I thought it was obvious from what I said, in the same way that the concepts of C-D enlighten my mind, as do the concepts of D-E. This is the analogy, it is a perfect example that you should understand as you do 1+1=2.


So you consider most of the bible as suspect, not revealed.

I consider all writings suspect, but I will agree with the deepest exhortations of my soul.



So, belief in God and the bible is all about what ever is in it that satisfies you?

Yes.


How so? Can you be specific? What specifically about the sermon on the mount opened your mind to God. I'm assuming that you believed in this God even though your mind was not opened to him previously to reading the passage, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

I can not say it any better than Plato himself, I look at Socrates as a Protochrist.

I was imprisoned since childhood in the cave, like in the allegory, and it is Christ that freed me, allowed me to see the fire. This happened due to his rapist wit, his revolutionary way of thinking, basically, his dialectic thought process, displayed in his speech on the hill.


But my question was why do you believe this. Why do you believe that dialectic thought, the exercise of reason, and the ideas elicited therein necessitate a Gods influence.

Because from what I have seen, displays a God. If you can not see God, then I have to liken you to a prisoner in the allegory of the cave.

If you seek the truth of what I say you will find it in that parable. It is where I found the light that shines upon the path to God, and if you can not, then I can not help you. Seek elsewhere than me for your God.

Pytharchimedes
04-27-2015, 09:06 PM
Dang, thought I deleted the previous post accidentally and amended it in a different manner...how embarrassing!

Oh well, life goes on.

The Pixie
04-28-2015, 12:22 AM
So basically now you are arguing definitions and semantics? I guess you are no longer wondering why Jesus had to die if you are at the point of just picking nits. Several people have explained why he had to die, so either you really don't care, or you just used that as a way to troll.

I guess I am done here.
I admit it is a side issue, but it does seem important. Christians have chosen to call damnation "death". I am curious why they do that. My suspicion is that it adds ambiguity to the argument, which helps explain the Garden of Eden thing.

You said earlier:

"Because Jesus came to give eternal life in contrast to eternal death."

What does that actually mean when we translate from the doubletalk? Do you mean "eternal death", as in annihilation? Or "eternal death" as in damnation? If the latter, why did you choose to call it "eternal death" rather than damnation, giving that the latter is considerably clearer, and the point of posting was presumably to make your position clear?

You do not want to answer, so I guess we leave it at that.

Tassman
04-28-2015, 03:22 AM
This is untrue. No church-wide council ever took up the issue of canon.

Although the Easter letter of bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 gave a list of the books that would eventually comprise the twenty-seven-book NT canon and he actually used the word "canonized" with regard to them. So it’s reasonable to assume that the cannon had been established in the popular mind by then if not formalised by a Council.

One Bad Pig
04-28-2015, 06:01 AM
Although the Easter letter of bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 gave a list of the books that would eventually comprise the twenty-seven-book NT canon and he actually used the word "canonized" with regard to them. So it’s reasonable to assume that the cannon had been established in the popular mind by then if not formalised by a Council.
Agreed.

bling
04-29-2015, 07:00 AM
This is something I have never understood, so I am wondering if anyone can help me. There are plenty of glib answers, such as "it was part of God's plan", but that just raises the question of why it was part of God's plan. Why did God engineer the world so that Jesus' death did what it did? Many web sites purport to address this, but none I have found give any illumination.

https://www.gci.org/disc/07-whydie
Jesus said, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). He came to give his life, to die, and his death would result in salvation for others. This was the reason he came to earth. His blood was poured out for others (Matthew 26:28).

Okay... But who was this ransom paid to? To God! So God sacrificed himself to pay a ransom that God demanded from himself. Does that actually make sense to anyone?

https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/why-did-jesus-have-die-our-sins
The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1 ,14; Col. 2:9), and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.

According to this web page, God was only able to forgive us if he first sacrificed himself. I can forgive people without anyone dying, but apparently God cannot. And he is the one who is all-powerful. If you are going to assert that it is different for God, do please say how. And why!

I will add this one too as a great illustration of not answering the question.
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-on-the-cross
You have done a great job in picking up on some really big issues the popular theories of atonement have like:

1. Why did God not come up with a better “plan”?
2. Why does God need this to forgive, when I can easily forgive other without human sacrifices?
3. How different is God from us?
4. Who is being paid the ransom?
I will leave the web page for later, since that has issues also.

I can present good logical Christian reasons for us (everyone reading this can) to discuss, but they are not one of the 9 popular theories out there. This subject is huge and many books have been written on it.

First off: 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Most Christians may not even be able to “explain” the cross, but know the cross through experiencing the cross. As a nonbeliever you will not experience being “crucified with Christ”, so this all may seem foolish to you, but I will try to explain it intellectually to you and you can ask questions.

I will be asking you lots of questions and that is mainly the way I teach, so if you are not interested in learning you just do not have to answer my questions.

1. This “plan” of having Christ go to the cross is actually the only plan that appears workable in helping humans fulfill their earthly objective and that is one thing I will try to show.

2. Obviously, as you pointed out, an all-powerful, all-Loving and all-knowing wonderful parent would find it easy to forgive His rebellious disobedient children without the need for Christ to go to the cross. God is not blood thirsty needing blood to forgive. Christ going to the cross is not to solve some short coming God has (like He cannot forgive without it). You can see for the Old Testament before Christ went to the cross people were forgiven of the worst sins by turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness. There was no atonement system for intentional sins in the Old Testament, but for minor sins (unintentional sins) there was atonement and afterwards God did forgive. (Lev. 5) Also as a side note in Lev. 5 we find a bag of flour could be used to as the atonement sacrifice for any unintentional sin if the person was poor. The bag of flour was not taking the person’s place in any way and in fact in the Old Testament none of the sin sacrifices were justified as taking the sinner’s place (it just does not support the theory of substitution).

3. God is described as an unbelievably Loving father (Luke 15: 11-32). This Love exceeds logic, but everything else is pretty logical if you take into account this Love. So we can use our own feelings and emotions to try and understand God.

4. We can start with the “ransom” idea, here is where it gets intense: I am not talking about the “Ransom theory of Atonement”, where you have God needing to pay satan off. God does not “owe” satan anything and it would be wrong for the parent to pay anything to a kidnapper if the parent could just as easily take the children back without paying a ransom (satan is not that powerful to force God to do anything and it is not just and fair to pay kidnappers).

Paul, Christ, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all use the scenario of a ransom, in the ransom scenario there is an undeserving recipient of the ransom (a kidnapper), if the recipient was deserving (like God would be), then it is not a ransom and should be called payment.

For the most part everyone seems to agree with: 1. the child (people) of the parent (God) being held away from the God, the payer of the ransom can be described as deity (God and/or Christ), the ransom payment is described as the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, so that leaves who is the kidnapper? (Some do say “no one” or an intangible [death/evil/sin] but cannot justify these)

As you already pointed out: God is not the logical kidnapper since He does not need to pay Himself, he is not holding his children back from himself and what value would God have in a tortured humiliated murdered Christ (Is God blood thirsty)?

You need to read the prodigal son story Luke 15: 11-32 and help me with the answer:

(1) Who snuck around in the master’s house and dragged his young son away to a foreign land where he was forced to do wicked things, and wound up chained to a pigsty starving to death? (The wicked young son himself?)
(2) Who held the son captive? (He did?)
(3) Who released the young son from the pigsty? (He did?)
(4) Who returned to the father the son that left after telling his Father “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance” or was it the child of the Father? (the same young man but very different?)

The only way we can come to the father is as children, so who went to the father?

There could be one ransom payment but could there be lots of kidnappers?

All nonbeliever themselves are holding back children of God from going to God, those children dwell within each of us.

Is the nonbeliever worthy of a huge sacrificial ransom payment made at great cost to the payer?

That brings up a follow up question “what value does the cruel tortured, humiliated, and murdered body of Christ have for the nonbeliever and why all the blood”?

If the nonbeliever does not believe he/she caused Christ to be crucified as a result of their personal sins it would have no value to them. This ransom could be offered for them and to them, but why would they take it? (Faith is need in something)

This takes us back to looking at the logic:

As Christians believe and scripture states “God is our Father” and as a this most wonderful parent God would not only easily forgive us but if at all possible God would also see to our fair/just disciplining.

Wonderful Parents try to see to the disciplining of their rebellious disobedient children for all the right/good reasons discipline provides:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline to keep from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the “punishment” for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline (punish) us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.

The next question would be: How can God see to our fair just discipline when our disobedience is unbelievable huge (by God’s standard) and virtually any disciplining (punishment) should kill us?

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to have your own child tortured and murdered before you for your personal transgressions or would you prefer to take the deserved punishment yourself?

Christ (the person I love more than anyone in this world) allowed Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by wicked people, because I personally sinned (If I had not sinned and fulfilled my objective Christ would not have gone to the cross). This like those in Acts 2:37 cut me to the heart (I felt a death blow to my heart [the worst feeling I could have and live]) when I came to the realization of what Christ did for and because of me. As my Love for Christ has grown so has my empathy for what Christ went through.

What God’s desired result from my sinning and Christ going to the cross, is all the benefits of being disciplined and my realizing how unbelievable huge my debt of sin created so I could have an unbelievable huge Love. This huge Love is Godly type Love that is not instinctive (like a robotic type love) nor could God force me to accept this Love (that would not be Loving).

Jesus has taught us this philosophical truth “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”

Have you seen that truth fulfilled in your life from those that have humbly accept pure charity in the form of unconditional, sacrificial, selfless forgiveness?

I can give lots more on this subject, but this will have to do for now.

Pytharchimedes
04-29-2015, 07:20 PM
You have done a great job in picking up on some really big issues the popular theories of atonement have like:

1. Why did God not come up with a better “plan”?
2. Why does God need this to forgive, when I can easily forgive other without human sacrifices?
3. How different is God from us?
4. Who is being paid the ransom?
I will leave the web page for later, since that has issues also.

I can present good logical Christian reasons for us (everyone reading this can) to discuss, but they are not one of the 9 popular theories out there. This subject is huge and many books have been written on it.

First off: 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Most Christians may not even be able to “explain” the cross, but know the cross through experiencing the cross. As a nonbeliever you will not experience being “crucified with Christ”, so this all may seem foolish to you, but I will try to explain it intellectually to you and you can ask questions.

I will be asking you lots of questions and that is mainly the way I teach, so if you are not interested in learning you just do not have to answer my questions.

1. This “plan” of having Christ go to the cross is actually the only plan that appears workable in helping humans fulfill their earthly objective and that is one thing I will try to show.

2. Obviously, as you pointed out, an all-powerful, all-Loving and all-knowing wonderful parent would find it easy to forgive His rebellious disobedient children without the need for Christ to go to the cross. God is not blood thirsty needing blood to forgive. Christ going to the cross is not to solve some short coming God has (like He cannot forgive without it). You can see for the Old Testament before Christ went to the cross people were forgiven of the worst sins by turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness. There was no atonement system for intentional sins in the Old Testament, but for minor sins (unintentional sins) there was atonement and afterwards God did forgive. (Lev. 5) Also as a side note in Lev. 5 we find a bag of flour could be used to as the atonement sacrifice for any unintentional sin if the person was poor. The bag of flour was not taking the person’s place in any way and in fact in the Old Testament none of the sin sacrifices were justified as taking the sinner’s place (it just does not support the theory of substitution).

3. God is described as an unbelievably Loving father (Luke 15: 11-32). This Love exceeds logic, but everything else is pretty logical if you take into account this Love. So we can use our own feelings and emotions to try and understand God.

4. We can start with the “ransom” idea, here is where it gets intense: I am not talking about the “Ransom theory of Atonement”, where you have God needing to pay satan off. God does not “owe” satan anything and it would be wrong for the parent to pay anything to a kidnapper if the parent could just as easily take the children back without paying a ransom (satan is not that powerful to force God to do anything and it is not just and fair to pay kidnappers).

Paul, Christ, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all use the scenario of a ransom, in the ransom scenario there is an undeserving recipient of the ransom (a kidnapper), if the recipient was deserving (like God would be), then it is not a ransom and should be called payment.

For the most part everyone seems to agree with: 1. the child (people) of the parent (God) being held away from the God, the payer of the ransom can be described as deity (God and/or Christ), the ransom payment is described as the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, so that leaves who is the kidnapper? (Some do say “no one” or an intangible [death/evil/sin] but cannot justify these)

As you already pointed out: God is not the logical kidnapper since He does not need to pay Himself, he is not holding his children back from himself and what value would God have in a tortured humiliated murdered Christ (Is God blood thirsty)?

You need to read the prodigal son story Luke 15: 11-32 and help me with the answer:

(1) Who snuck around in the master’s house and dragged his young son away to a foreign land where he was forced to do wicked things, and wound up chained to a pigsty starving to death? (The wicked young son himself?)
(2) Who held the son captive? (He did?)
(3) Who released the young son from the pigsty? (He did?)
(4) Who returned to the father the son that left after telling his Father “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance” or was it the child of the Father? (the same young man but very different?)

The only way we can come to the father is as children, so who went to the father?

There could be one ransom payment but could there be lots of kidnappers?

All nonbeliever themselves are holding back children of God from going to God, those children dwell within each of us.

Is the nonbeliever worthy of a huge sacrificial ransom payment made at great cost to the payer?

That brings up a follow up question “what value does the cruel tortured, humiliated, and murdered body of Christ have for the nonbeliever and why all the blood”?

If the nonbeliever does not believe he/she caused Christ to be crucified as a result of their personal sins it would have no value to them. This ransom could be offered for them and to them, but why would they take it? (Faith is need in something)

This takes us back to looking at the logic:

As Christians believe and scripture states “God is our Father” and as a this most wonderful parent God would not only easily forgive us but if at all possible God would also see to our fair/just disciplining.

Wonderful Parents try to see to the disciplining of their rebellious disobedient children for all the right/good reasons discipline provides:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline to keep from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the “punishment” for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline (punish) us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.

The next question would be: How can God see to our fair just discipline when our disobedience is unbelievable huge (by God’s standard) and virtually any disciplining (punishment) should kill us?

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to have your own child tortured and murdered before you for your personal transgressions or would you prefer to take the deserved punishment yourself?

Christ (the person I love more than anyone in this world) allowed Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by wicked people, because I personally sinned (If I had not sinned and fulfilled my objective Christ would not have gone to the cross). This like those in Acts 2:37 cut me to the heart (I felt a death blow to my heart [the worst feeling I could have and live]) when I came to the realization of what Christ did for and because of me. As my Love for Christ has grown so has my empathy for what Christ went through.

What God’s desired result from my sinning and Christ going to the cross, is all the benefits of being disciplined and my realizing how unbelievable huge my debt of sin created so I could have an unbelievable huge Love. This huge Love is Godly type Love that is not instinctive (like a robotic type love) nor could God force me to accept this Love (that would not be Loving).

Jesus has taught us this philosophical truth “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”

Have you seen that truth fulfilled in your life from those that have humbly accept pure charity in the form of unconditional, sacrificial, selfless forgiveness?

I can give lots more on this subject, but this will have to do for now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpn_lNjPuec

The Pixie
05-01-2015, 03:20 AM
You have done a great job in picking up on some really big issues the popular theories of atonement have like:

1. Why did God not come up with a better “plan”?
2. Why does God need this to forgive, when I can easily forgive other without human sacrifices?
3. How different is God from us?
4. Who is being paid the ransom?
Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to make such a comprehensive post. For practical reasons I am going to pull out what I see as the salient points and respond to them. Apologies in advance if I miss something important or take something out of context; I am sure you will correct me.

1. This “plan” of having Christ go to the cross is actually the only plan that appears workable in helping humans fulfill their earthly objective and that is one thing I will try to show.
This is the crux of it.

2. Obviously, as you pointed out, an all-powerful, all-Loving and all-knowing wonderful parent would find it easy to forgive His rebellious disobedient children without the need for Christ to go to the cross. God is not blood thirsty needing blood to forgive. Christ going to the cross is not to solve some short coming God has (like He cannot forgive without it). You can see for the Old Testament before Christ went to the cross people were forgiven of the worst sins by turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness. There was no atonement system for intentional sins in the Old Testament, but for minor sins (unintentional sins) there was atonement and afterwards God did forgive. (Lev. 5) Also as a side note in Lev. 5 we find a bag of flour could be used to as the atonement sacrifice for any unintentional sin if the person was poor. The bag of flour was not taking the person’s place in any way and in fact in the Old Testament none of the sin sacrifices were justified as taking the sinner’s place (it just does not support the theory of substitution).
For some sins there was an atonement system, and it often included a blood sacrifice (which does support the theory of substitution). The use of a bag of floor suggests it is not blood itself that is special, but the destruction of something important. A bag of floor would be important to a poor person with no livestock, while a goat would be important to a more wealthy person.

You say "There was no atonement system for intentional sins in the Old Testament". Why is that? I get the impression that your point is that a sacrifice is enough for minor sins, but God expects more for major sins, and by more, that would mean "turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness".

So already we seem to have established that God can forgive major sins - at least under two conditions: the sinner stops sinning and the sinner humbly accepts the forgiveness.

3. God is described as an unbelievably Loving father (Luke 15: 11-32). This Love exceeds logic, but everything else is pretty logical if you take into account this Love. So we can use our own feelings and emotions to try and understand God.
Good.

You need to read the prodigal son story Luke 15: 11-32 and help me with the answer:

(1) Who snuck around in the master’s house and dragged his young son away to a foreign land where he was forced to do wicked things, and wound up chained to a pigsty starving to death? (The wicked young son himself?)
(2) Who held the son captive? (He did?)
(3) Who released the young son from the pigsty? (He did?)
(4) Who returned to the father the son that left after telling his Father “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance” or was it the child of the Father? (the same young man but very different?)

The only way we can come to the father is as children, so who went to the father?

There could be one ransom payment but could there be lots of kidnappers?
That is an interesting way of putting it; I have not come across it before. So I am the kidnapper of me in the sense that there is a part of me that is pure and good, but my sinful nature keeps that imprisoned, not letting it go to God.

Is the nonbeliever worthy of a huge sacrificial ransom payment made at great cost to the payer?
Kind of a side issue, but that ransom is shared between literally billions of people, and the cost to God was what? A relatively brief time on the cross (compared to other crucifixion victims and tiny compared to God's infinite life) and dead for two days?

As Christians believe and scripture states “God is our Father” and as a this most wonderful parent God would not only easily forgive us but if at all possible God would also see to our fair/just disciplining.
Most people would say that "fair/just disciplining" would imply (1) the punishment is proportional to the offence (and you seem to agree "the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression"); and (2) the punishment is applied to the person who committed the offence.

Neither of these appears to be the case. I appreciate you are talking about applying a ransom, so there is more to it, but what we see here bears little resemblance to "fair/just disciplining".

Wonderful Parents try to see to the disciplining of their rebellious disobedient children for all the right/good reasons discipline provides:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline to keep from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the “punishment” for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child.
As far as I can see, God fails on all counts. Look at the mess around the world and you will soon find that there is no effective deterrent. There is no sign of greater punishment for greater transgressions. There is no evidence of fairness and justice. There is no sense of putting the transgression behind us because no one has this feeling of having "done the time for the crime".

The next question would be: How can God see to our fair just discipline when our disobedience is unbelievable huge (by God’s standard) and virtually any disciplining (punishment) should kill us?
Well he could have a more reasonable standard that reflects what people are actually like. Why expect us to keep to such a high standard if he chose to make us like this?

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to have your own child tortured and murdered before you for your personal transgressions or would you prefer to take the deserved punishment yourself?
The latter.

Call me odd, but I think the perpetrator should be punished for the transgression.

Christ (the person I love more than anyone in this world) allowed Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by wicked people, because I personally sinned (If I had not sinned and fulfilled my objective Christ would not have gone to the cross). This like those in Acts 2:37 cut me to the heart (I felt a death blow to my heart [the worst feeling I could have and live]) when I came to the realization of what Christ did for and because of me. As my Love for Christ has grown so has my empathy for what Christ went through.
Suppose you did something wrong, something really bad. Your mother finds out somehow, and she says to you, "I forgive you," and then puts her hand in the fire, suffering a great agony. "I did that so you would know how much I forgive you."

Would you find your mother's actions seem reasonable and loving to you?

Putting her hand in the fire would seem utterly insane to me. A very bad way of showing she loves me, and instead a way of manipulating me through guilt.

Have you seen that truth fulfilled in your life from those that have humbly accept pure charity in the form of unconditional, sacrificial, selfless forgiveness?
I have never seen sacrificial forgiveness, but certainly unconditional and selfless forgiveness. I have forgiven people unconditionally and selflessly myself; I would consider it odd (but not implausible) if otherwise.

So what is special here is the sacrificial forgiveness, which, like I said, is like your mother putting her hand in the fire to show how much she forgives you.

Truthseeker
05-01-2015, 03:00 PM
To the Pixie, do you know about the Day of Judgment? So far on this page that was not brought up.

bling
05-01-2015, 03:27 PM
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to make such a comprehensive post. For practical reasons I am going to pull out what I see as the salient points and respond to them. Apologies in advance if I miss something important or take something out of context; I am sure you will correct me.

This is the crux of it.


For some sins there was an atonement system, and it often included a blood sacrifice (which does support the theory of substitution). The use of a bag of floor suggests it is not blood itself that is special, but the destruction of something important. A bag of floor would be important to a poor person with no livestock, while a goat would be important to a more wealthy person.
You are right on here, with the exception “some sins there was an atonement system, and it often included a blood sacrifice”. Actually under the Old Testament the only sins that could be atoned for where unintentional sins and every one of those sins could be atone for with a bag of flour if you were poor. The point is it is not the sin itself that requires a specific sacrifice, but the sinner.

As you pointed out, it appears God is trying to equalize the hardship on the unintentional sinner, himself. I would take this a step further and say equalizing the “disciplining”. This is not a harsh disciplining, but the sins are very minor also (unintentional).




You say "There was no atonement system for intentional sins in the Old Testament". Why is that? I get the impression that your point is that a sacrifice is enough for minor sins, but God expects more for major sins, and by more, that would mean "turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness".
You are getting the idea correctly of “more”, but it is not at all “God expecting more…”, but has everything to do with man needing “more”.

The last part: by more…means "turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness". That is not the “more” that is needed, this is forgiveness and not atonement.

Here is the problem:

As Children of the Father, we have rebelliously in His face disobeyed Him. God the Father has no problem forgiving that transgression, but as a wonderful parent, God also needs to see to our Loving /Just/Fair disciplining. I gave some of the benefits to Loving disciplining, but bottom line when it is done and accepted correctly discipline it forms a closer stronger relationship between the Parent and the child.



So already we seem to have established that God can forgive major sins - at least under two conditions: the sinner stops sinning and the sinner humbly accepts the forgiveness.
Very good! But like I said above more than just forgiveness is needed to really grow the relationship.


That is an interesting way of putting it; I have not come across it before. So I am the kidnapper of me in the sense that there is a part of me that is pure and good, but my sinful nature keeps that imprisoned, not letting it go to God.
Very good.

Kind of a side issue, but that ransom is shared between literally billions of people, and the cost to God was what? A relatively brief time on the cross (compared to other crucifixion victims and tiny compared to God's infinite life) and dead for two days?
OK, you hit upon a really interesting issue and one that might seem out there a little. Excuse me for doing so but I need to use the Bible here:

Mark 14: And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”
Christ did not “want” to go to the cross and since God is fully empathic for Christ God does not “want” Christ to go to the cross. So what other way could Christ even be considering as an alternative to His going to the cross and why is this the only way?

Think about this: If you could go through your life and fulfill your earthly objective (the one God has for man) and had not sin, than Christ would not have had to go to the cross for you (are you in agreement so far?). If that had happened could God have looked down the courtier of time and seen you (one person) fulfilled the object without the need to sin, so would you have established an “other way”? What seems to be suggested here; God would know if there was any other possible way for man to fulfill his earthly objective without sinning.

So bottom line: I personally (just one person) could have kept Christ from going to the cross if I had not sinned. It is my personal fault Christ went to the cross.

That might be hard for you to grasp, but there are other verses that can help you, but mainly you need to accept what Christ did on the cross because of you and for you. This will allow you to be crucified with Him.



Most people would say that "fair/just disciplining" would imply (1) the punishment is proportional to the offence (and you seem to agree "the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression"); and (2) the punishment is applied to the person who committed the offence.
Very Good! and that is totally true!

Neither of these appears to be the case. I appreciate you are talking about applying a ransom, so there is more to it, but what we see here bears little resemblance to "fair/just disciplining".
You show much greater understanding than most and have an excellent grasp of what is going on, but lack one element.

Think about this: Would God the father in heaven be in just as much or maybe even more pain than Christ while Christ was on the cross? (Empathizing)

Look at Acts 2: 35…God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

3000 became believers that day, but would any have responded, if Christ had just died of heat stroke and resin on the third day?

If Peter could not have said: “whom you crucified” would those 3000 have experienced a death blow to their heart (the worst possible experience they could have and still live)?

Our sins require the worst possible torturous experience we can take, so by Christ going to the cross because of what we have done, we can experience (through empathy) the worst possible experience we could handle and still live.

The only way to get through the remembrance of what I did is the fact the greatest love is also being seen at the same time.

Paul says: “I have been crucified with Christ” and which is our disciplining for our sins.

As Christians, we should experience disciplining which is less than those that refuse God’s discipline and are eventually punished by God’s wrath.



As far as I can see, God fails on all counts. Look at the mess around the world and you will soon find that there is no effective deterrent. There is no sign of greater punishment for greater transgressions. There is no evidence of fairness and justice. There is no sense of putting the transgression behind us because no one has this feeling of having "done the time for the crime".
You can know if you are a child of God if you have been disciplined by Him. Being crucified with Christ for our sins is our disciplining.

If you are not a child you are not disciplined and that is what we see in the world around us.






Suppose you did something wrong, something really bad. Your mother finds out somehow, and she says to you, "I forgive you," and then puts her hand in the fire, suffering a great agony. "I did that so you would know how much I forgive you."


Would you find your mother's actions seem reasonable and loving to you?

Putting her hand in the fire would seem utterly insane to me. A very bad way of showing she loves me, and instead a way of manipulating me through guilt.

I have never seen sacrificial forgiveness, but certainly unconditional and selfless forgiveness. I have forgiven people unconditionally and selflessly myself; I would consider it odd (but not implausible) if otherwise.

So what is special here is the sacrificial forgiveness, which, like I said, is like your mother putting her hand in the fire to show how much she forgives you.
Good at least you understand that part is not truly what happened.

Here is a better analogy:

I have written a parable to help explain how atonement works:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but it is to later and besides; there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.

The Pixie
05-05-2015, 12:51 AM
To the Pixie, do you know about the Day of Judgment? So far on this page that was not brought up.
In vague terms, yes. How does it related to the crucifixion? Why do you think no one has brought it up yet?

The Pixie
05-07-2015, 02:04 AM
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
No problem; sorry it has taken me so long to get back; that is partly because you have given me a lot to think about.

You are right on here, with the exception “some sins there was an atonement system, and it often included a blood sacrifice”. Actually under the Old Testament the only sins that could be atoned for where unintentional sins and every one of those sins could be atone for with a bag of flour if you were poor. The point is it is not the sin itself that requires a specific sacrifice, but the sinner.

As you pointed out, it appears God is trying to equalize the hardship on the unintentional sinner, himself. I would take this a step further and say equalizing the “disciplining”. This is not a harsh disciplining, but the sins are very minor also (unintentional).
Okay.

You are getting the idea correctly of “more”, but it is not at all “God expecting more…”, but has everything to do with man needing “more”.

The last part: by more…means "turning from their ways and humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness". That is not the “more” that is needed, this is forgiveness and not atonement.
Okay, I had not appreciated atonement was separate from forgiveness.

Here is the problem:

As Children of the Father, we have rebelliously in His face disobeyed Him. God the Father has no problem forgiving that transgression, but as a wonderful parent, God also needs to see to our Loving /Just/Fair disciplining. I gave some of the benefits to Loving disciplining, but bottom line when it is done and accepted correctly discipline it forms a closer stronger relationship between the Parent and the child.
In theory that sounds reasonable. The problem is that in practice we do not see this "Loving /Just/Fair disciplining", as I said last time.

OK, you hit upon a really interesting issue and one that might seem out there a little. Excuse me for doing so but I need to use the Bible here:
The more you cite scripture the better in my opinion.

Mark 14: And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”
Christ did not “want” to go to the cross and since God is fully empathic for Christ God does not “want” Christ to go to the cross. So what other way could Christ even be considering as an alternative to His going to the cross and why is this the only way?

Think about this: If you could go through your life and fulfill your earthly objective (the one God has for man) and had not sin, than Christ would not have had to go to the cross for you (are you in agreement so far?).
If you are asserting that this is what Christian doctine states, then I will accept it on that basis.

The question is, why did Jesus have to go to the cross if I fail to fulfill the objective God has given me? It would seem to me that:

1. It is God who gave us this objective
2. It is God who made us as we are
3. It is God who decided getting crucified was necessarily the solution

If it comes to that, why has God not laid out his objective clearly so everyone can see what it is? You might say he has in the Bible, but the Bible is not unambiguous, and historically has not been available to everyone.

If that had happened could God have looked down the courtier of time and seen you (one person) fulfilled the object without the need to sin, so would you have established an “other way”? What seems to be suggested here; God would know if there was any other possible way for man to fulfill his earthly objective without sinning.

So bottom line: I personally (just one person) could have kept Christ from going to the cross if I had not sinned. It is my personal fault Christ went to the cross.
So are you saying it was within your power to stop Jesus getting crucified?

But it was not within God's power to do so?

Think about this: Would God the father in heaven be in just as much or maybe even more pain than Christ while Christ was on the cross? (Empathizing)
I really cannot imagine where we would begin to answer that.

Look at Acts 2: 35…God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

3000 became believers that day, but would any have responded, if Christ had just died of heat stroke and resin on the third day?
So it was a publicity stunt? That is probably not what you mean, but is what you are saying.

Our sins require the worst possible torturous experience we can take,...
Says who?

Who says they are sins?

The worse sin we can commit is to not love God - because God has decided that that is the worst sin there is.

Our sins require the worst possible torturous experience we can take, so by Christ going to the cross because of what we have done, we can experience (through empathy) the worst possible experience we could handle and still live.
You are actually saying that every human being deserves to be tortured.

I had a long discussion with Apologiaphoenix (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5422-Genesis-and-Antis) about how Christianity promotes the idea that we are all worthless scum. It is not a view I subscribe to. If you want to claim that everyone deserves to to suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live" you will need to argue the case.

The only way to get through the remembrance of what I did is the fact the greatest love is also being seen at the same time.
The greater love is to say that actually you do not need to suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live".

If you are not a child you are not disciplined and that is what we see in the world around us.
So in effect the punishment is optional. Either we can be Christians, and suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live" or we can not be Christians and not suffer that experience.

The discipline applied is not related to what bad things we have done at all.

I have written a parable to help explain how atonement works:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but it is to later and besides; there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.
A merciful judge would adjust the punishment so it was not fatal. In your analogy, the judge is free to do that, as he later chooses not to punish the father at all.

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave your post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. The judge (general) realises this and reduces the punishment accordingly. Justice has been done, you have been punished and you still live. Oh, and no third party had to get involved, allowing your son to continue to play his role in the war.

This is the way we do it in the western world. You punish the guilty for the crime, not innocent.

bling
05-07-2015, 11:38 AM
In theory that sounds reasonable. The problem is that in practice we do not see this "Loving /Just/Fair disciplining", as I said last time.
As I said and Paul said: “The cross seems foolish to the nonbeliever”.

It is much easier for the Christian to experience God’s discipline than it is to “see” God’s fair, just, Loving discipline, so you are very much correct.





If you are asserting that this is what Christian doctine states, then I will accept it on that basis.
Unfortunately most “Christians” cannot verbalize their objective, understand why God does what he does, but just have a kind of “blind trust”, but they might have experienced it even unknowingly.



The question is, why did Jesus have to go to the cross if I fail to fulfill the objective God has given me? It would seem to me that:

1. It is God who gave us this objective
2. It is God who made us as we are
3. It is God who decided getting crucified was necessarily the solution
God is Love which means God is totally unselfish. God’s Love would thus compel God to make beings He could gift with the greatest gifts possible which would include becoming like Himself (with totally unselfish Love).

The problem is totally unselfish Love is not a knee jerk reaction, cannot be instinctively placed in a being, and thus must be the result of a free will choice.

A Loving God will not force His Love on you like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun (that is not Loving nor can Godly Love be transferred this way.

Our “objective” is as easy as God could make it, just be willing to accept God’s charity (Love) and God is doing everything He can to help willing individuals to just humbly accept.
That “everything” includes allowing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so we might accept His forgiveness.

If you “fail” to fulfill your earthly objective you certainly cannot blame God and the cross is meaningless to you and will not upset you.

It is not God deciding to send Christ to the cross, but it is man needing Christ to go to the cross. You might be aware of the false concept of “penal substitution” where Christ on the cross replaces man, but that is not really who is man’s substitution at the cross, but all those shouting crucify Him are standing in for me (they are my substitution). I could use Acts 2 to explain this but then I would have to explain Acts 2.

God does not need, but I need sin to be unbelievably huge, creating an unbelievable huge debt, so as Jesus has taught (and we can know from our own experiences) Luke 7:36-50 “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” If I am going to obtain this unbelievable huge Love it must automatically come from being forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt (sin)”, with murdering Christ being that unbelievable huge



If it comes to that, why has God not laid out his objective clearly so everyone can see what it is? You might say he has in the Bible, but the Bible is not unambiguous, and historically has not been available to everyone.
The “mission statement” has been given as the greatest command which most people easily can pick up on: “Loving God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

If you were commanded by God to “accept My Love”, would that cause you to humbly accept God’s Love as pure charity, because if you accepted His Love as the result of being commanded to do so the transaction would not be completed; it has to be humbly accepted as pure charity (since that is what it is). The Love God wants you to have cannot be “commanded’ of you since you have to extended it toward God and others totally unconditionally.

God is not asking man to “Love me with this Love that cannot be humanly developed, learned, earned or paid back.” You have to first accept God’s Love as Godly Love and then it is automatic.


So are you saying it was within your power to stop Jesus getting crucified?

But it was not within God's power to do so?
I could have kept it from happening, but God or Christ at any time could have stopped the crucifixion. They went on with this tragedy, because of what it could do for me.

I really cannot imagine where we would begin to answer that.
There is an “oneness” talked about in scripture between God and Christ. Love is all over the place with these two.

So it was a publicity stunt? That is probably not what you mean, but is what you are saying.
No, “publicity stunt”. But it is somewhat of a “set up”, so if the person really believed this was the Messiah, they would experience the worst possible experience they could have and live (a death blow to their heart). They were in a desperate situation of needing an unbelievable Love of God to forgive them.



Who says they are sins?

The worse sin we can commit is to not love God - because God has decided that that is the worst sin there is.

You are actually saying that every human being deserves to be tortured.

I had a long discussion with Apologiaphoenix (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5422-Genesis-and-Antis) about how Christianity promotes the idea that we are all worthless scum. It is not a view I subscribe to. If you want to claim that everyone deserves to to suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live" you will need to argue the case.
It goes back to the truism of “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” this unbelievable, unachievable, un-learnable, and undeserved Love requires an unbelievable huge debt, so it can be forgiven with an unbelievable huge Love (forgiveness).

Think about this: There is the “ugly”, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on you parents mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You as a young man get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent easily forgive you, but your father in an act of Loving discipline (this was not you first rebellious action) collects every little piece of the vase and you work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept in remembrance, but dollar wise it is worthless. The working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship and appreciation for your father’s Love.



The greater love is to say that actually you do not need to suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live".

So in effect the punishment is optional. Either we can be Christians, and suffer "the worst possible experience we could handle and still live" or we can not be Christians and not suffer that experience.

The discipline applied is not related to what bad things we have done at all.
It is very much if you are being “disciplined” for causing the murder of Christ.


A merciful judge would adjust the punishment so it was not fatal. In your analogy, the judge is free to do that, as he later chooses not to punish the father at all.

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave your post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. The judge (general) realises this and reduces the punishment accordingly. Justice has been done, you have been punished and you still live. Oh, and no third party had to get involved, allowing your son to continue to play his role in the war.

This is the way we do it in the western world. You punish the guilty for the crime, not innocent.
The “punishment” for leaving your post in war can be death even in the West.

The Judge make sure the criminal will be or has been “disciplined” (not really punished) for the offence.

The judge is not seeing to the punishment of the innocent.

The Pixie
05-08-2015, 01:47 AM
As I said and Paul said: “The cross seems foolish to the nonbeliever”.
On that we agree.

The question is whether that view is accurate or not.

It is much easier for the Christian to experience God’s discipline than it is to “see” God’s fair, just, Loving discipline, so you are very much correct.
An important part of good disciple is how it looks. Good disciple must appear to be fair and just, and arguably that is more important (in terms of how effective it is) than actually being fair and just. Hence we have the idea that: Justice should not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.

God is Love which means God is totally unselfish.
And yet God's first command is to love him. that is egotism taken to the extreme, the complete opposite of "totally unselfish".

God’s Love would thus compel God to make beings He could gift with the greatest gifts possible which would include becoming like Himself (with totally unselfish Love).
And yet he chose not. He got angry when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and deliberately stopped them eating from the Tree of Life.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

The problem is totally unselfish Love is not a knee jerk reaction, cannot be instinctively placed in a being, and thus must be the result of a free will choice.
Instead people have to be threatened with eternal suffering in hell so they will freely choose to unselfishly love God. Is that right?

A Loving God will not force His Love on you like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun (that is not Loving nor can Godly Love be transferred this way.
Actually it is very much like that, except God is holding a one-way trip to hell at your head rather than a shotgun.

Our “objective” is as easy as God could make it, just be willing to accept God’s charity (Love) and God is doing everything He can to help willing individuals to just humbly accept.
That is the best he can do?

About 5 billion people do not think he even exists! Is he powerless to persuade them he even exists?

Is it beyond him even to ensure all his own followers understand the Bible the same way?

That “everything” includes allowing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so we might accept His forgiveness.
But it does not include communicating with the leaders of his own followers to tell them the truth!

If you “fail” to fulfill your earthly objective you certainly cannot blame God and the cross is meaningless to you and will not upset you.
If God has failed to make that objective clear to me, why blame me if I do not achieve it?

It is not God deciding to send Christ to the cross, but it is man needing Christ to go to the cross.
Can you explain the difference here? They do not seem to me to be mutually exclusive, and indeed it would seem reasonable to say that God realised that man needed Christ to go to the cross and so decided to send him there.

If it was not God who decided to send Christ, who did (obviously the Romans did in a prosaic sense, but we are not talking about that sense of it)?

God does not need, but I need sin to be unbelievably huge, creating an unbelievable huge debt, so as Jesus has taught (and we can know from our own experiences) Luke 7:36-50 “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” If I am going to obtain this unbelievable huge Love it must automatically come from being forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt (sin)”, with murdering Christ being that unbelievable huge
So you believe that you personally have committed a huge sin by having Jesus crucified, and that that is a good thing and part of God's plan, because it means God must love you immensely because he has forgiven that huge sin? That seems wrong on so many levels.

1. It disagrees with mainstream Christian doctrine (which comes back to God being powerless to get his message across to his own followers).

2. You were not responsible for the crucifixion. It was beyond your power to stop it, so it is not your sin. The point of free will, as I understand it, is that you can choose to sin or not. You had no choice in this, therefore it is not your sin.

3. God has contrived a situation where he set up Jesus' death, and then he tells you you are to blame, and then he says he forgives you for it. And that proves he loves you. That is like your friend burning down his house while you are away, then telling you it was your fault, but actually she forgives you. What an immense love your friend must have for you that she is prepared to forgive you for that, right?

The “mission statement” has been given as the greatest command which most people easily can pick up on: “Loving God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

If you were commanded by God to “accept My Love”, would that cause you to humbly accept God’s Love as pure charity, because if you accepted His Love as the result of being commanded to do so the transaction would not be completed; it has to be humbly accepted as pure charity (since that is what it is). The Love God wants you to have cannot be “commanded’ of you since you have to extended it toward God and others totally unconditionally.
And yet God holds this one-way ticket to hell at your head: Love me unconditionally, or I will torture you in hell.

I could have kept it from happening, but God or Christ at any time could have stopped the crucifixion. They went on with this tragedy, because of what it could do for me.
Do please tell me what action you could take (or avoid) that would stop Jesus getting crucified 2000 years ago.

It goes back to the truism of “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” this unbelievable, unachievable, un-learnable, and undeserved Love requires an unbelievable huge debt, so it can be forgiven with an unbelievable huge Love (forgiveness).
But it is a set up. What he is forgiving you for is something you have nothing to do with. I might as well tell you I forgive you for the earthquake in Nepal. Thousands of people died there, and I have decided it was your fault. But as a sign of my great love for you, I forgive you killing all those people.

Does that work for you?

Think about this: There is the “ugly”, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on you parents mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You as a young man get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent easily forgive you, but your father in an act of Loving discipline (this was not you first rebellious action) collects every little piece of the vase and you work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept in remembrance, but dollar wise it is worthless. The working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship and appreciation for your father’s Love.
Now think about this: There is the “ugly”, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parents' mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. Someone broke it before you were born. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent easily forgive you, but your father in an act of Loving discipline collects every little piece of the vase and you work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept in remembrance, but dollar wise it is worthless. The working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship and appreciation for your father’s Love.

How much value does you parents' forgiveness have now?

[quote]This is the way we do it in the western world. You punish the guilty for the crime, not innocent.[quote]
The “punishment” for leaving your post in war can be death even in the West.
Why did you put “punishment” in scare quotes? Is this punishment, or are you now changing your argument to talk about consequences? Sure the consequences of leaving your post can lead to someone else dying.

We are discussing punishment.

In the West, people are punished for crimes they committed, not someone else.

The Judge make sure the criminal will be or has been “disciplined” (not really punished) for the offence.
What is the difference between “disciplined” and punished? Why the scare-quotes?

The judge is not seeing to the punishment of the innocent.
Not in your analogy, no. But in the case of Jesus, it was all orchestrated by God.

bling
05-08-2015, 11:57 AM
An important part of good disciple is how it looks. Good disciple must appear to be fair and just, and arguably that is more important (in terms of how effective it is) than actually being fair and just. Hence we have the idea that: Justice should not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
Scripture says: Heb. 12: 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

It takes time to appreciate loving discipline and especially those that would not accept such discipline correctly, it will look foolish.



And yet God's first command is to love him. that is egotism taken to the extreme, the complete opposite of "totally unselfish".
It was not the first, but the greatest command and one that cannot be done by man’s ability.

If a child asked his/her perfectly wonderful parent: “What do you want from me as your child?” and the parent said: “Nothing but to have you Love me?” Would you think that parent was being egotistical?

You have to understand Godly type Love. No one can Love God with Godly type Love, without first accept God’s Love as pure charity. This “Love” we have for God is only out of an unbelievable huge gratitude for what God has already done for us (and God has done it all there is no more for Him to do).

God Loves us (will do and does do more sacrificial stuff for us) than we could ever Love Him, so who is the winner and loser in that relationship?

If you cannot “Love” someone that has sacrificially done everything possible to help you, what kind of person are you? Is this “command” of God something you have to work at, because if it is; you are not doing it right?



And yet he chose not. He got angry when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and deliberately stopped them eating from the Tree of Life.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
There is a ton of stuff we can learn from the Garden Story even if we do not think it figurative, so this brings up another huge topic.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

The Garden shows us that God really want us to be in a wonderful place, but obtaining Godly type Love requires a much better place for humbly accepting pure charity (where we are today).

There are lots of ways to become like God with knowledge, but to become like God with love requires the accepting of God’s Love as charity, which did not and really could not happen in the garden situation.

On leaving the Garden there were lots of curses given to man, but those curses actually help humans to fulfill their objective of accepting God’s Love.

Sin is not the problem and actually helps the unbeliever fulfill his objective.



Instead people have to be threatened with eternal suffering in hell so they will freely choose to unselfishly love God. Is that right?
I think the Bible supports the idea of annihilation and not eternal suffering in hell. The “threat” of hell is only for those that actually believe the Christian God exists, but are still refusing God’s help.



Actually it is very much like that, except God is holding a one-way trip to hell at your head rather than a shotgun.
Again: I think the Bible supports the idea of annihilation and not eternal suffering in hell. The “threat” of hell is only for those that actually believe the Christian God exists, but are still refusing God’s help. I am not under any threat.

That is the best he can do?
If you think about you will come to the realization there is no better way.

About 5 billion people do not think he even exists! Is he powerless to persuade them he even exists?
There are people that have or do lack the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love, so from my understand of God they will go to heaven without ever fulfilling their earthly object, so will have only a child for parent type of love and never have Godly type Love (Which I am to blame for).

There are other people that have been burdened (consciously) by past decisions they have made that hurt others and have turn to the Creator for help and God will and did help them.

There are others that do not like the idea of being Loved in spite of who they are and what they have done and only desire the love of others for how they want others to perceive them to be.

These people really do not want to have unselfish Love or be truly Loved, so they would be unhappy in heaven where there is only a huge Love feast of Godly type Love.


Is it beyond him even to ensure all his own followers understand the Bible the same way?
True followers do have what they need to lead a Godly type life 2 Peter 1: 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

But it does not include communicating with the leaders of his own followers to tell them the truth!
Not sure who you mean by “leaders”? Every true Christian has the indwelling Holy Spirit.

If God has failed to make that objective clear to me, why blame me if I do not achieve it?
If you truly have not been given the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love, you will not be held accountable a choice not made. But living the life like those that refuse God’s charity, and saying “I did not make a choice” was your choice of refusing.

Can you explain the difference here? They do not seem to me to be mutually exclusive, and indeed it would seem reasonable to say that God realised that man needed Christ to go to the cross and so decided to send him there.
Yes, God did know at least some humans would need to have Christ go to the cross to accept His Love as charity and for the discipline it would provide.

God is not going to “force” Christ to go to the cross or hold Christ on the cross, but God will allow (at great pain and suffering on God’s part) Christ to go, if Christ Loves man enough to do such a thing.

God and Christ are both this unchanging Love, so the deciding factor is man. There were plenty of satan disciples that wanted Christ dead and Christ on other occasions did not allow them to kill Him, because the timing was not right.


If it was not God who decided to send Christ, who did (obviously the Romans did in a prosaic sense, but we are not talking about that sense of it)?
The cross was always in the plan, since man’s need for Christ going to the cross was always there.


So you believe that you personally have committed a huge sin by having Jesus crucified, and that that is a good thing and part of God's plan, because it means God must love you immensely because he has forgiven that huge sin? That seems wrong on so many levels.
God hugely Loves me no matter what, but I will not humble myself to accept that Love as charity without a huge need to do so, I have too much pride.

1. It disagrees with mainstream Christian doctrine (which comes back to God being powerless to get his message across to his own followers).
Not sure what “message” you are talking about, since I am talking about humbly accepting His Love.

2. You were not responsible for the crucifixion. It was beyond your power to stop it, so it is not your sin. The point of free will, as I understand it, is that you can choose to sin or not. You had no choice in this, therefore it is not your sin.
Actually, I did make a free will choice to sin, if I had not sinned Christ would not have gone to the cross (this has to do with God being outside of time [time being relative]). It is not that I physically nailed Christ to the cross, but it was my personal sins that forced a willing Christ to go to the cross.

3. God has contrived a situation where he set up Jesus' death, and then he tells you you are to blame, and then he says he forgives you for it. And that proves he loves you. That is like your friend burning down his house while you are away, then telling you it was your fault, but actually she forgives you. What an immense love your friend must have for you that she is prepared to forgive you for that, right?
It is nothing like that.

How bad are the sins I have done? With or without Christ going to the cross; they are hugely bad, but I do not consider them that bad without the cross. If God just says: “You are forgiven” without any discipline (to help set the value of those sins), I might feel that sins are even less significant since they were nothing for God to just forgive.

How do you get the message across to man that his sins are unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled? Remember you are trying to get him to accept Godly type Love as pure charity, so “..he that is forgiven much will Love much…”?


And yet God holds this one-way ticket to hell at your head: Love me unconditionally, or I will torture you in hell.
Please look at the Prodigal Son Story (Luke 15: 11-32): It was the young sons choice to either stay in the pigsty alone to starve to death (which is what he fully deserved) or he could turn to his father for help. If the young son had been a real macho man he would have willingly starved to death in the pigsty [just payment for what he did] and not pestered his father further with his presence.


That is the choice being made and why the starving pigsty scenario (hell) is there. But was the father putting that gun to his head or was it the son that put it there?


Do please tell me what action you could take (or avoid) that would stop Jesus getting crucified 2000 years ago.

But it is a set up. What he is forgiving you for is something you have nothing to do with. I might as well tell you I forgive you for the earthquake in Nepal. Thousands of people died there, and I have decided it was your fault. But as a sign of my great love for you, I forgive you killing all those people.

Does that work for you?

Yes it works



Now think about this: There is the “ugly”, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parents' mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. Someone broke it before you were born. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent easily forgive you, but your father in an act of Loving discipline collects every little piece of the vase and you work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept in remembrance, but dollar wise it is worthless. The working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship and appreciation for your father’s Love.

How much value does you parents' forgiveness have now?
If you repay for the crime in full there is no need for forgiveness. The gluing the vase back together did not return the value of the vase.


[quote][quote]This is the way we do it in the western world. You punish the guilty for the crime, not innocent.
Why did you put “punishment” in scare quotes? Is this punishment, or are you now changing your argument to talk about consequences? Sure the consequences of leaving your post can lead to someone else dying.Punishment and discipline are the same word in Greek.


We are discussing punishment.

Punishment in scripture can be translated discipline.


In the West, people are punished for crimes they committed, not someone else.Right! An that is what Christians go through.


What is the difference between “disciplined” and punished? Why the scare-quotes?
You might want to read Dobson on discipline and punishment, but it is the same Greek word in the New Testament.



Not in your analogy, no. But in the case of Jesus, it was all orchestrated by God.
No it was not, wicked men crucified Christ and God and Christ allowed them to do it.

The Pixie
05-12-2015, 04:04 AM
Scripture says: Heb. 12: 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

It takes time to appreciate loving discipline and especially those that would not accept such discipline correctly, it will look foolish.
So we can see why it looks foolish to me. Now you have to do is explain why it is not.

It was not the first...
Jesus said it was the first:

Mat 22:7 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.

It was not the first, but the greatest command and one that cannot be done by man’s ability.
That is a pretty damning admission. God set up the system such that his creations are not even capable of following his first command.

If it is beyond our capability, then that is a failing on God's part. He made us like this. He wrote the command. He knew when he did so that it "cannot be done by man’s ability".

If a child asked his/her perfectly wonderful parent: “What do you want from me as your child?” and the parent said: “Nothing but to have you Love me?” Would you think that parent was being egotistical?
No. But if the parent said “Nothing but to have you Love me more than anything else, and if you fail to do that I will make you suffer so much?” then yes.

You have to understand Godly type Love. No one can Love God with Godly type Love, without first accept God’s Love as pure charity. This “Love” we have for God is only out of an unbelievable huge gratitude for what God has already done for us (and God has done it all there is no more for Him to do).
This is the point. Why should I feel that gratitude? The whole thing is a set up. God made a law that he knew we could not keep, God decided Jesus would die to make up for us not keeping it. Now he expects me to feel this "unbelievable huge gratitude" for that?

God Loves us (will do and does do more sacrificial stuff for us) than we could ever Love Him, so who is the winner and loser in that relationship?
The billions who end up in hell despite leading good lives are the losers.

If you cannot “Love” someone that has sacrificially done everything possible to help you, what kind of person are you? Is this “command” of God something you have to work at, because if it is; you are not doing it right?
Everything possible?

How about creating us capable of complying with his first commandment?

How about setting commandments that we can achive?

How about not tirturing for eternity those who fail?

Are these things beyond God?

The Garden shows us that God really want us to be in a wonderful place, but obtaining Godly type Love requires a much better place for humbly accepting pure charity (where we are today).
The question is why? Who decided that "obtaining Godly type Love requires a much better place"? Who decided that "humbly accepting pure charity" is so great? God did.

Whichever way you tell it, the system was designed and created by God (if we accept Christian doctrine). He chose for it to be the way it is.

There are lots of ways to become like God with knowledge, but to become like God with love requires the accepting of God’s Love as charity, which did not and really could not happen in the garden situation.
Because God chose that it could not.

Or God is himself obligated to follow someone else's rules.

On leaving the Garden there were lots of curses given to man, but those curses actually help humans to fulfill their objective of accepting God’s Love.

Sin is not the problem and actually helps the unbeliever fulfill his objective.
That is interesting, because most Christians say that sin is the problem.

I think the Bible supports the idea of annihilation and not eternal suffering in hell. The “threat” of hell is only for those that actually believe the Christian God exists, but are still refusing God’s help.
Is that instant annihilation or annihilation after God has tortured you for a while?

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Again: I think the Bible supports the idea of annihilation and not eternal suffering in hell. The “threat” of hell is only for those that actually believe the Christian God exists, but are still refusing God’s help. I am not under any threat.
Cool, neither am I.

If you think about you will come to the realization there is no better way.
How about making his message clear to his followers? Why is that not better than the fragmented messages we see from hundreds of different sects?

There are people that have or do lack the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love, so from my understand of God they will go to heaven without ever fulfilling their earthly object, so will have only a child for parent type of love and never have Godly type Love (Which I am to blame for).
So it turns out a better way would be for God to keep his existence secret. If no one knows he exists, we all lack the opportunity to choose God's love and so all get a free pass to heaven.

The Great Commission was a work of evil, spreading the news that there is a God, and so greatly reducing the chances of people getting to heaven.

These people really do not want to have unselfish Love or be truly Loved, so they would be unhappy in heaven where there is only a huge Love feast of Godly type Love.
As long as God will not make them suffer at all then that is fine.

Not sure who you mean by “leaders”? Every true Christian has the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Priests, vicars, preachers, etc. The guy at the front in church.

If you truly have not been given the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love, you will not be held accountable a choice not made. But living the life like those that refuse God’s charity, and saying “I did not make a choice” was your choice of refusing.
I do not believe God exists. That is not a choice I have made, that is the inevitable outcome of the evidence presented to me.

Yes, God did know at least some humans would need to have Christ go to the cross to accept His Love as charity and for the discipline it would provide.

God is not going to “force” Christ to go to the cross or hold Christ on the cross, but God will allow (at great pain and suffering on God’s part) Christ to go, if Christ Loves man enough to do such a thing.
Christ is God, so you are saying God did not force God to go to the cross, but God did allow God to.

God hugely Loves me no matter what, but I will not humble myself to accept that Love as charity without a huge need to do so, I have too much pride.
That is the way God made you. Perhaps he should have created peole with less pride. Or was that beyond him?

Not sure what “message” you are talking about, since I am talking about humbly accepting His Love.
His message is what he wants for us. What he wants us to do, why we should do it.

God came to Earth as Jesus and said a bunch of stuff. Did that have any meaning? If so, that was God's message.

Unfortunately God has been powerless to stop his message getting corrupted into hundred of different sects, all convinced they knew his message. Virtually all must be wrong, because they all disagree.

Actually, I did make a free will choice to sin, if I had not sinned Christ would not have gone to the cross (this has to do with God being outside of time [time being relative]). It is not that I physically nailed Christ to the cross, but it was my personal sins that forced a willing Christ to go to the cross.
Was he willing or was he forced? Please decide.


God has contrived a situation where he set up Jesus' death, and then he tells you you are to blame, and then he says he forgives you for it. And that proves he loves you. That is like your friend burning down his house while you are away, then telling you it was your fault, but actually she forgives you. What an immense love your friend must have for you that she is prepared to forgive you for that, right?
It is nothing like that.

How bad are the sins I have done? With or without Christ going to the cross; they are hugely bad, but I do not consider them that bad without the cross. If God just says: “You are forgiven” without any discipline (to help set the value of those sins), I might feel that sins are even less significant since they were nothing for God to just forgive.
This is the thing about Christian, it is founded on guilt. Jesus on the cross makes your sins much worse.

People do bad stuff all the time, but most people do the right thing most of the time. The humanist philosophy is that people are great. The Christian way is that people are scum. Christianity focuses on the bad, and then blows it out of proportion. And here we see it in action. You accept you sin, you even accept that your sins do not amount to much, at least, not until we throw Christianity at them. Suddenly your sins are "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled".

Sure we do bad things, but it takes the Christian God to turn our insignificant sins into something "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled"

How do you get the message across to man that his sins are unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled? Remember you are trying to get him to accept Godly type Love as pure charity, so “..he that is forgiven much will Love much…”?
How do you convince a man that his little sins are "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled"? Years of indoctrination by Christianity I guess.

Please look at the Prodigal Son Story (Luke 15: 11-32): It was the young sons choice to either stay in the pigsty alone to starve to death (which is what he fully deserved) or he could turn to his father for help. If the young son had been a real macho man he would have willingly starved to death in the pigsty [just payment for what he did] and not pestered his father further with his presence.

That is the choice being made and why the starving pigsty scenario (hell) is there. But was the father putting that gun to his head or was it the son that put it there?
Is that really equivalent? The father did not engineer the starving in a pigsty situation. The father did not engineer his son's failure.

A better analogy would be that the father sent spies after his son, and those spies deliberately sabotaged all the son's business ventures, ensuring that he failed, and that he would have to come back grovelling to the father, who then gets to look good by forgiving the son.

You may say that God does not deliberately sabotage us, but if no one every succeeds, no one out of several billion people, then God created us so we could not succeed ("one that cannot be done by man’s ability").

Punishment and discipline are the same word in Greek.

Punishment in scripture can be translated discipline.
So why were you drawing a distinction between them when you said: "The Judge make sure the criminal will be or has been “disciplined” (not really punished) for the offence."


No it was not, wicked men crucified Christ and God and Christ allowed them to do it.
Were the men any more wicked than the rest of us?

bling
05-14-2015, 06:26 PM
So we can see why it looks foolish to me. Now you have to do is explain why it is not.
You might have to put for your best effort, also.

Why do you want to know why Christ died?

How would your life change for the good if you did experience the crucifixion?


Jesus said it was the first:

Mat 22:7 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.
“First” in that contexts means foremost and not the chronological “first” command. The first command chronologically would be “do not eat of the tree of knowledge”.


That is a pretty damning admission. God set up the system such that his creations are not even capable of following his first command.

If it is beyond our capability, then that is a failing on God's part. He made us like this. He wrote the command. He knew when he did so that it "cannot be done by man’s ability".
If your father said to you when you were 10: “I want you to guide the family ship to the fishing grounds” and you asked for the ship’s wheel and went off course right away, would it not also teach you there is a lot to learn before doing such a task?

The command is to “Love beyond our own ability”, but trying and failing does teach us we need help. God is very much wanting to help, but only if we will allow Him to help us and he is not going to help us against our will. The allowing is our part and the allowing makes it us and not just Him doing it.




No. But if the parent said “Nothing but to have you Love me more than anything else, and if you fail to do that I will make you suffer so much?” then yes.
The last part is not what God is communicating: “Love” cannot be coerced out of a person especially with a threat. The “threat” associated with the suffering and/or annihilation of hell would only apply to those that believed in the Christian God and prior to their accepting God’s Love. The threat is not trying to get the person to Love, but to help some people with the acceptance of God’s Love. It takes a lot for some people to be willing to humbly accept pure charity, so the possibility of hell will help them.

Hell is not a threat to those that humbly accept God’s Love.



This is the point. Why should I feel that gratitude? The whole thing is a set up. God made a law that he knew we could not keep, God decided Jesus would die to make up for us not keeping it. Now he expects me to feel this "unbelievable huge gratitude" for that?
I fully agree: “You should not feel any gratitude toward God”.

The only time you could possible “Love God out of gratitude”, is after He has given you everything possible you could ever want with the exception of only the guarantee of heaven, since that does come later.

Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross does not “make up for us not keeping the commandments”. That was done to help us Lovingly experiencing disciplining.



The billions who end up in hell despite leading good lives are the losers.
Those that “go to hell” did not and would never accept God’s Love (charity) and do not want Godly type Love for themselves (they prefer to be “loved” for the way they want people to perceive them to be and not in spite of the way they really are). The problem is: “heaven is like one huge Love feast, but only Godly type Love is at the feast, so people not liking Godly type Love would not be happy in heaven.


Everything possible?
Sorry, but the impossible is not possible.

How about creating us capable of complying with his first commandment?
If God instinctively gave us a “love” (this would be like a robotic type love) it would not be a Godly type Love. We can “comply” with the command by allowing God to help us.

How about setting commandments that we can achive?
We can obtain Godly type Love, by humbly accepting His Love.

How about not tirturing for eternity those who fail?
The Bible does teach annihilation, but there could be some “punishment” prior to the annihilation.

Are these things beyond God?
Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive.

The question is why? Who decided that "obtaining Godly type Love requires a much better place"? Who decided that "humbly accepting pure charity" is so great? God did.

Whichever way you tell it, the system was designed and created by God (if we accept Christian doctrine). He chose for it to be the way it is.
Yes, which is the very best way possible, to help us fulfill our objective.

Because God chose that it could not.
No, because man must humbly accept God’s Love and the only easy way to do that is by accepting it in the form of forgiveness.


Or God is himself obligated to follow someone else's rules.
The only “rule” God has to follow is the fact even He cannot do that which cannot be done.

That is interesting, because most Christians say that sin is the problem.
I am not like “most” Christians.

Is that instant annihilation or annihilation after God has tortured you for a while?
There appears to be degrees of punishment throughout scripture, so some could be annihilated immediately while others could suffer for a while.





How about making his message clear to his followers? Why is that not better than the fragmented messages we see from hundreds of different sects?
There are people that have or do lack the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love, so from my understand of God they will go to heaven without ever fulfilling their earthly object, so will have only a child for parent type of love and never have Godly type Love (Which I am to blame for). So it turns out a better way would be for God to keep his existence secret. If no one knows he exists, we all lack the opportunity to choose God's love and so all get a free pass to heaven.

So it turns out a better way would be for God to keep his existence secret. If no one knows he exists, we all lack the opportunity to choose God's love and so all get a free pass to heaven.


The Great Commission was a work of evil, spreading the news that there is a God, and so greatly reducing the chances of people getting to heaven.
The “objective” is not to just get to heaven, but it is to become like God Himself in that you have Godly type Love. We are to be spreading the “good news” which to those that are truly seeking relief from the burden in their conscience from hurting others in the past is good news.

Some people do become mature adults without ever hearing the Christian gospel (good news) and they can still refuse to accept the Creator’s help by not seeking the Creator’s help, according to scripture it takes a fool to not believe there is a God.




Priests, vicars, preachers, etc. The guy at the front in church.
Sorry, I see only servants as true “leaders” and not people ruling over others.




I do not believe God exists. That is not a choice I have made, that is the inevitable outcome of the evidence presented to me.
So you place your faith in weak evidence for God not existing?

Can you proof God does not exist?




Christ is God, so you are saying God did not force God to go to the cross, but God did allow God to.
The trinity is a huge different topic, they are one but still have individual personalities.

That is the way God made you. Perhaps he should have created peole with less pride. Or was that beyond him?
If there was nothing to “overcome” would the prize have value, would my love for God just be the “default” reaction?

Humans have a survival instinct for good reasons, without a survival instinct eternal life would not be desired/ have real value. With a survival instinct come self-awareness, self-preservation, and self-concern. Unselfishness works against all this self-stuff, but both are needed to be like God. To remove self is really removing the person that can decide to make the choice.


His message is what he wants for us. What he wants us to do, why we should do it.
For the most part everything Christ said, had been said before by prophets. The messenger is what’s important.
God came to Earth as Jesus and said a bunch of stuff. Did that have any meaning? If so, that was God's message.


Unfortunately God has been powerless to stop his message getting corrupted into hundred of different sects, all convinced they knew his message. Virtually all must be wrong, because they all disagree.
They cannot all be right, but they all could be wrong as you point out.

As long as it does not go against God’s plan, God does not prevent people from sinning, sin has purpose for nonbelievers.

God works at the individual level, so we are not limited by some earthly organization.

This is not a “problem” where there is severe persecution , like in Communist china with the underground church.


Was he willing or was he forced? Please decide.
Christ’s Love compelled Christ to go to and stay on the cross. Who forces a person to go on a suicide mission? The mission must be done and the soldier is willing to do it.


This is the thing about Christian, it is founded on guilt. Jesus on the cross makes your sins much worse.
The bottom line is: “you are guilty” and the cross is just pointing this out. Prior to humbly accepting God’s Love, you are inconsiderate, disrespecting, being selfish, and have walked away from God. You are like the prodigal son that left really stealing the father’s money.

If you are not guilty, then you do not need to be forgiven.

If you do not need forgiveness, you do not need to humbly accept God’s charity (Love) in the form of forgiveness.



People do bad stuff all the time, but most people do the right thing most of the time. The humanist philosophy is that people are great. The Christian way is that people are scum. Christianity focuses on the bad, and then blows it out of proportion. And here we see it in action. You accept you sin, you even accept that your sins do not amount to much, at least, not until we throw Christianity at them. Suddenly your sins are "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled".
Every person on earth has the potential to be like God (Christ) himself. Christians are willing to sacrifice themselves for their enemies.

There are lots of methods used to try and relief the burden of past mistakes that have hurt others (sin) and minimizing them does seem to help for a while, but they keep coming back. If you are not burdened by your past mistakes, I really have a hard time helping you. It is not that I elevate the person’s burden, but work to relief the burden they already have.



Sure we do bad things, but it takes the Christian God to turn our insignificant sins into something "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled"
No, people already have huge burdens in their conscience they: drink, take drugs, use sex, use work, or try lots of other things that do not work. Humanist can try to minimize sin, but does it work?






How do you convince a man that his little sins are "unbelievable huge beyond any concept of being reconciled"? Years of indoctrination by Christianity I guess.
It is not my convincing him, but him feeling bad about what he did. To say something that hurt others is “insignificant”, is a lie?

If a person feels their sins are actually “little”, might be due to a lack of knowledge about the impact a sin could have on a person. Lots of young men justify sinful sexual activity with girls younger than 17 as being their problem.



Is that really equivalent? The father did not engineer the starving in a pigsty situation. The father did not engineer his son's failure.
The pigsty is in this life, while hell is after you have repeatedly refused to accept God’s help.


A better analogy would be that the father sent spies after his son, and those spies deliberately sabotaged all the son's business ventures, ensuring that he failed, and that he would have to come back grovelling to the father, who then gets to look good by forgiving the son.
Jesus is giving us this scenario, so you cannot rewrite a better scenario. The father does not have to “sabotage’ the son, since the son will fail on his own. It is the son’s choice to return.


You may say that God does not deliberately sabotage us, but if no one every succeeds, no one out of several billion people, then God created us so we could not succeed ("one that cannot be done by man’s ability").“Success” for the world, maybe becoming rich and powerful and taking advantage of others and living a very selfish life.

So why were you drawing a distinction between them when you said: "[i]The Judge make sure the criminal
I am not writing in Greek. Most people make a distinction between discipline and punishment

Were the men any more wicked than the rest of us?
No they were not.

The Pixie
05-15-2015, 01:49 AM
bling

Somehow I got the impression that you believe that it is not possible for a man to love God to the standard that God demands. Looking back, I am not sure that that is right, and your last post seems to say otherwise. I am worried I have misunderstood what you are saying and if you could clarify this one point, I will respond to your last post. It seems pointless to respond when I may be getting it all wrong.

bling
05-15-2015, 10:30 AM
bling

Somehow I got the impression that you believe that it is not possible for a man to love God to the standard that God demands. Looking back, I am not sure that that is right, and your last post seems to say otherwise. I am worried I have misunderstood what you are saying and if you could clarify this one point, I will respond to your last post. It seems pointless to respond when I may be getting it all wrong.
Man instinctively (naturally) cannot Love God and/or others, unconditionally, unselfishly, and with everything they are (heart, soul, mind and energy).

Man can humble accept God’s Love as pure charity and thus be gifted with Godly type Love. At that point they can take the initial portion of Godly type Love and grow that Love through use.

Natural loves can be extremely strong such as the love a child has for a wonderful parent or the love a woman can have for her husband, but those are not Godly type love (there are logical reasons for those types of love). Godly type love is not logical.