What have we learned?

[RBerman]

Because I would describe an individual having no understanding of good/evil, or right/wrong as being ignorant of good/evil, or right/wrong.

I don't know how a car engine works. Am I too ignorant to be expected to obey the speed limit?

I give God the benefit of the doubt. I could just have easily said that God is a sadist.

You could indeed have said that. Is it possible that other explanations exist besides those two?

[37818]

Hay robertb,

How would you like to really ;meet God? You can. I'm not saying He will speak to you though. At least not in any way which He hasn't already.

[hedrick]

It's immoral to punish someone who is innocent. It's not necessarily immoral for someone to take someone else's punishment. The ethical issue only arises if God himself is punishing Jesus, not if, for example, his crucifixion is a result of injustice by the Romans.

However if you read "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" at face value (some see it as an incomplete citation of a Psalm, whose whole meaning has other implications), then God is actually punishing Jesus by withdrawing from him and letting him experience the alienating effect of sin. The most straight-forward interpretation I've heard of that is that Jesus so identified with the rest of humanity that he actually bore our guilt, and God had him experience the consequences. This would be injustice if you didn't assume that in some way Jesus actually was guilty.

This isn't something that would normally make sense. Guilt isn't normally transferable. But the relationship between humanity and Jesus is special, allowing a transfer in both directions that wouldn't apply in other cases.

[hedrick]

I realized afterwards that the answer above isn't complete.

Yes, it's wrong for a legal system to punish the wrong person. But that's not the end of the matter. The fact is, people are related to each other is ways that present lots of gray areas. No, properly speaking one person isn't guilty of another's sins. Yet people are involved in each others' actions, and people do feel both good and bad about what members of their family and friends to. American culture has tried to minimize this, but in many other cultures people are punished for what family members do. We don't go that far, but some feelings like that are still present, and I think the feelings represent a reality.

I think part of what it means to love someone or even to be a friend is that you are to some extent involved in what they do, although that doesn't mean that the legal system should hold them accountable.

The situation with Jesus is special, as I mentioned. Being "in Christ" is a connection different than to family members. But it's not without analogies with family and friends.

I have a feeling some participants in this discussion will not feel that these kind of connections between people are real. Christianity will likely have no interest to them.

[headheart]

Enter: Matthew . John and Mark

Paul stands in the wings.

[Composer]

Enter: Matthew . John and Mark

Paul stands in the wings.

4 story book characters with 100% hearsay at best testimony,

Wow, what a let down for you!

[Obsidian]

Why do you think that I "do not even believe in punishment"? What, specifically, have I written that has given you this idea?

I already listed a few of your quotes that seemed to indicate that in your mind, justice is all about restitution:

The only one that can pay the debt is the debtor. . . . People do go on and maybe even try to make some sort of restitution, but the wrong itself cannot be undone.

And here's another one:

How do you make amends to the person you murdered? You can't because they are dead.

Justice isn't primarily about restitution or making amends. It's about punishment. You obviously know your own beliefs better than I do, but to me your view of justice seems a little muddled, at best.

You asked if it would be justice for a murderer's friend to be executed in place of the murderer. There are a number of elements of justice, and Christian salvation tends to answer them all, and helps to explain why the analogy is imperfect:

1) Specific deterrence (incapacitation) -- The Christian himself gets his spirit regenerated and held accountable to God, who continues to oversee the Christian's actions, for his service to the kingdom.

2) General deterrence is not particularly relevant because everyone has already sinned anyway such that deterrence is futile. The Bible does suggest, though, that many individuals continue to reject the gospel because they love sin too much, so there is still some level of deterrence offered.

3) Restitution is not all that relevant because God doesn't particularly need us in any strict sense. We do, however, become his servants and the subjects of his kingdom, which obviously gives him glory, and we have the opportunity to help him populate that kingdom with additional people that we evangelize. Also, Christians are called upon to do good toward human beings in place of their former wickedness. (Also, restitution toward human beings is derived from God's law, as recorded by Moses, such that the issue of "making amends" to a dead victim is inapplicable to the extent that God says it is inapplicable. Restitution is not justice itself, but is merely an element of a properly functioning human judicial system.)

4) Punishment has been satisfied because Jesus, God in the flesh, died for us. Also, we spiritually participate in that death through the Holy Spirit when we get saved.

5) Societal education has been satisfied in that the whole world can look back on Jesus's suffering and educate themselves on how seriously God takes sin. Anyone who will crucify his own Son isn't one to mess with.

4 story book characters with 100% hearsay at best testimony

Well given that they aren't ALIVE right now, then yeah their writings are hearsay. So what?

Given that most of them were killed for their beliefs, you could probably classify their writings as admissible "Statements against interest," if you really want to get lawyerly.

[Cybelle Hawke]

Because I would describe an individual having no understanding of good/evil, or right/wrong as being ignorant of good/evil, or right/wrong.

I give God the benefit of the doubt. I could just have easily said that God is a sadist.

Hi Robertb,

Thank you for your kind answer to my PM. I take it is still valid

Meanwhile, Hannah has picked up on this thread and you two have been covering a lot of what I wanted to say and ask. So allow me to "log in" on this post. However if you feel that we should take it up, where we left off.... fine too.

Let me start in saying that I am still merely interested in your personal ethics and not at all interested in changing your mind (as if I could) or bring you to faith (as if anybody could). On the other hand, I become "involved" when you talk classifying about the G_d I consider Holy. First you call Jesus´ teachings philosophical travesty... now I read about you easily being able to call G_d a sadist.... I must say.... you do not really think highly of Him and I wonder whether how you formulate his motives and behaviour in your posts is all legit. Of course you have the full right to express your opinions, then again, I also take the right to give my side of the story. So I am going a little into "Adam and Eve" but with the purpose to relate it to your personal ethics.

Your assumption that the presence of the tree of knowledge is the source for sin is incorrect (being ignorant of knowing right from wrong).The Adáam - Adam and Eve did not exist yet - was specifically told to not eat from this tree and also told what would happen if he did. The Adáam after having heard this commandment structures life in the Garden while naming all creatures that G_d brought before him. (Gen 2: 8-17) So the convenant worked. The Adáam has been living in the Garden with no problem so to speak. So the tree being in the Garden is not the reason why sin occured.

Then, there is the creation of Iesja. She is taken from the rib of The Adáam. Iesj and Iesja (The name Eve only is given to her much later) continue to live in the Garden with no problem until the day that Iesja takes a closer look at the tree and sees its beauty and decides that it is desirable to become knowing as G_d, she takes from the tree, eats and gives to ... etc etc. So being ignorant of right or wrong is not the issue, it was a conscient desire and decision of Iesja to become as G_d while she knew that G_d had forbidden it.

Reading Genesis 3, you will notice that G_d does not simply punishes but gives consequence of not repenting. We will never know what would have happend if Iesj would have responded what would have been only fair: G_d I have broken your rule, look how naked I am. I did wrong and I wish we could turn back the clock....(yes fully made up I admit)
Yet instead Iesj says something totally different. He bluntly blames Iesja and even manages to involve G_d in that blame; Iesja, on her turn hides behind a snake. Again there is no ignorance but willing decision-making of what is the cause of their wrong doing according to themselves and in reply to G_d´s question. Nor Iesj or Iesja take responsibility for their action (let alone repent from having done wrong): from the very beginning Iesj and Iesja blame "the other" including G_d. When things between man and G_d become like that: that man is simply pointing to the other, up to the absurdity a snake is supposed to be the one who is to blame.... then there is a consequence.

Is that sadistic? You yourself state that everybody is responsible for their own actions. Why cannot G_d call them out?

You say that only those who have been affected by actions are the only ones who can forgive. And in case they decide to not forgive, then that is their prerogative. Yet you blame G_d for not forgiving "adam" but is that not fully up to Him?

Also you "blame" G_d for not truly having loved adam. Yet if G_d would have acted according to your ethics, where adam would be held accountable for his action, adam would have to be put to death as it was foretold that he would surly die if he would eat from the tree. (although that death has another meaning as well)
So how is G_d sadistic when He, opposite to your ethics, does not put adam to death (and perhaps it was love that kept Him from doing so)?

[robertb]

I don't know how a car engine works. Am I too ignorant to be expected to obey the speed limit?

More like trying to obey a speed limit when the driver doesn't understand the signs.

You could indeed have said that. Is it possible that other explanations exist besides those two?

Indeed there are.

The most probable explanation, in my opinion, is that an early sect grafted their newer theology onto an older theology. By doing so, they created these types of issues. The resulting hybrid happened to be the version that won the historical lottery.

Of course, this theological battle is fairly well documented by some of our earliest Christian sources.

[robertb]

I already listed a few of your quotes that seemed to indicate that in your mind, justice is all about restitution:

Again, I believe that you have misread me.

Justice isn't primarily about restitution or making amends. It's about punishment. You obviously know your own beliefs better than I do, but to me your view of justice seems a little muddled, at best.

Punishment may be a part of Justice, but Justice is not punishment.

You asked if it would be justice for a murderer's friend to be executed in place of the murderer. There are a number of elements of justice, and Christian salvation tends to answer them all, and helps to explain why the analogy is imperfect:

1) Specific deterrence (incapacitation) -- The Christian himself gets his spirit regenerated and held accountable to God, who continues to oversee the Christian's actions, for his service to the kingdom.

2) General deterrence is not particularly relevant because everyone has already sinned anyway such that deterrence is futile. The Bible does suggest, though, that many individuals continue to reject the gospel because they love sin too much, so there is still some level of deterrence offered.

3) Restitution is not all that relevant because God doesn't particularly need us in any strict sense. We do, however, become his servants and the subjects of his kingdom, which obviously gives him glory, and we have the opportunity to help him populate that kingdom with additional people that we evangelize. Also, Christians are called upon to do good toward human beings in place of their former wickedness. (Also, restitution toward human beings is derived from God's law, as recorded by Moses, such that the issue of "making amends" to a dead victim is inapplicable to the extent that God says it is inapplicable. Restitution is not justice itself, but is merely an element of a properly functioning human judicial system.)

4) Punishment has been satisfied because Jesus, God in the flesh, died for us. Also, we spiritually participate in that death through the Holy Spirit when we get saved.

5) Societal education has been satisfied in that the whole world can look back on Jesus's suffering and educate themselves on how seriously God takes sin. Anyone who will crucify his own Son isn't one to mess with.

So answer the question.

Is it justice for a murderer's friend to be executed in place of the murderer?

[robertb]

Hi Robertb,

Thank you for your kind answer to my PM. I take it is still valid

Meanwhile, Hannah has picked up on this thread and you two have been covering a lot of what I wanted to say and ask. So allow me to "log in" on this post. However if you feel that we should take it up, where we left off.... fine too.

Let me start in saying that I am still merely interested in your personal ethics and not at all interested in changing your mind (as if I could) or bring you to faith (as if anybody could). On the other hand, I become "involved" when you talk classifying about the G_d I consider Holy. First you call Jesus´ teachings philosophical travesty... now I read about you easily being able to call G_d a sadist.... I must say.... you do not really think highly of Him and I wonder whether how you formulate his motives and behaviour in your posts is all legit. Of course you have the full right to express your opinions, then again, I also take the right to give my side of the story. So I am going a little into "Adam and Eve" but with the purpose to relate it to your personal ethics.

Your assumption that the presence of the tree of knowledge is the source for sin is incorrect (being ignorant of knowing right from wrong).The Adáam - Adam and Eve did not exist yet - was specifically told to not eat from this tree and also told what would happen if he did. The Adáam after having heard this commandment structures life in the Garden while naming all creatures that G_d brought before him. (Gen 2: 8-17) So the convenant worked. The Adáam has been living in the Garden with no problem so to speak. So the tree being in the Garden is not the reason why sin occured.

Then, there is the creation of Iesja. She is taken from the rib of The Adáam. Iesj and Iesja (The name Eve only is given to her much later) continue to live in the Garden with no problem until the day that Iesja takes a closer look at the tree and sees its beauty and decides that it is desirable to become knowing as G_d, she takes from the tree, eats and gives to ... etc etc. So being ignorant of right or wrong is not the issue, it was a conscient desire and decision of Iesja to become as G_d while she knew that G_d had forbidden it.

Reading Genesis 3, you will notice that G_d does not simply punishes but gives consequence of not repenting. We will never know what would have happend if Iesj would have responded what would have been only fair: G_d I have broken your rule, look how naked I am. I did wrong and I wish we could turn back the clock....(yes fully made up I admit)
Yet instead Iesj says something totally different. He bluntly blames Iesja and even manages to involve G_d in that blame; Iesja, on her turn hides behind a snake. Again there is no ignorance but willing decision-making of what is the cause of their wrong doing according to themselves and in reply to G_d´s question. Nor Iesj or Iesja take responsibility for their action (let alone repent from having done wrong): from the very beginning Iesj and Iesja blame "the other" including G_d. When things between man and G_d become like that: that man is simply pointing to the other, up to the absurdity a snake is supposed to be the one who is to blame.... then there is a consequence.

Is that sadistic? You yourself state that everybody is responsible for their own actions. Why cannot G_d call them out?

You say that only those who have been affected by actions are the only ones who can forgive. And in case they decide to not forgive, then that is their prerogative. Yet you blame G_d for not forgiving "adam" but is that not fully up to Him?

Also you "blame" G_d for not truly having loved adam. Yet if G_d would have acted according to your ethics, where adam would be held accountable for his action, adam would have to be put to death as it was foretold that he would surly die if he would eat from the tree. (although that death has another meaning as well)
So how is G_d sadistic when He, opposite to your ethics, does not put adam to death (and perhaps it was love that kept Him from doing so)?

To be fair, I would need to study your particular brand of theology. What source(s) are you using for this version of the creation stories in Genesis?

[Composer]

Given that most of them were killed for their beliefs, you could probably classify their writings as admissible "Statements against interest," if you really want to get lawyerly.

a) The legitimate evidence that the biblical story book is the words of a God given to men remains a constant zero!

b) The testimony of ALL the writers is hearsay and Judge Judy (or any Judge) would legally and rightly throw the lot out as inadmissible.

c) You also contradicted yourself in the one Post deary!

You claimed that your story book Jesus ' died for us ' -

(4) Punishment has been satisfied because Jesus, God in the flesh, died for us.

Oops! (Your self contradiction) -

Given that most of them were killed for their beliefs . . . .

IF your story book Jesus had literally ' died for us ', then it would still be dead and not raised and rewarded as the story book states. The following helps clarify the reality of the matter that decimates christianities claims such as those you also make here -

THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

There is no operation of Divine wisdom that has been so completely misapprehended and misrepresented as the shedding of the blood of Christ. Popular preaching brings it down to a level with the sacrifices of idolatrous superstition, by which wrathful deities are supposed to be placated by the blood of a substitutionary victim. Christ is represented as having paid our debts—as having died instead of us—as having stood in our room like a substitute in military service, or like a man rushing to the scaffold where a criminal is about to be executed, and offering to die instead of him (a favourite illustration in the evangelical pulpit).

Such views are contradicted by even the most superficial facts of the case; for if Christ died instead of us, then we ought not to die (which we do); and if he paid the penalty naturally due from us—death—he ought not to have risen (which he did). And if his death was of the character alleged, the redeeming power lay in itself and not in the resurrection that followed; whereas Paul declares to the Corinthians that, notwithstanding the death of Christ, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins” (1- Corinthians 15:17).

Further, if Christ has paid our debts, our debts are not “forgiven,” for it would be out of place for a creditor to talk of having forgiven a debt which someone else has paid for the debtor; and thus is blotted out the very first feature of the gospel of the grace of God—the forgiveness of our sins “through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:25 ). (Extract from: The Blood of Christ by Robert Roberts, (Christ Adelphian now deceased))

Of course IF the story book Jesus had literally ' died for us ' then the Apostles would also never have died, but according to the story book and you, they all did.

d) You also claimed that your story book Jesus was God?

Apart from the trinitarian corruption of the man made story book text, what other evidence do you have to offer for our scrutiny you feel might legitimately support your hypothesis?

For Your added Information:

i) Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . . (Page 160 - How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

ii) " It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and Malachi 3:1 prevented this " (Charles C. Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter).

iii) "The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the God head. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head. [The Triune God , by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

Thank you for your comments and better luck next time!

[headheart]

Entering from the wings: The apostle Paul - here, here and finally here

[Composer]

Entering from the wings: The apostle Paul - here, here and finally here

Scurrying away via the same wings but now with tail tucked firmly between legs and licking his terminal wounds, your alleged story book Paul departs in shame for many reasons such as those detailed in my Post#162 above.

Better luck next time and thanks for at least trying!

[robertb]

Let me start in saying that I am still merely interested in your personal ethics and not at all interested in changing your mind (as if I could) or bring you to faith (as if anybody could). On the other hand, I become "involved" when you talk classifying about the G_d I consider Holy. First you call Jesus´ teachings philosophical travesty... now I read about you easily being able to call G_d a sadist.... I must say.... you do not really think highly of Him and I wonder whether how you formulate his motives and behaviour in your posts is all legit. Of course you have the full right to express your opinions, then again, I also take the right to give my side of the story. So I am going a little into "Adam and Eve" but with the purpose to relate it to your personal ethics.

While you gather your sources, I would however like to correct one thing that you wrote.

You say that I "call Jesus´ teachings philosophical travesty". Actually I called a specific part of his teachings a philosophical travesty as it has come down to us.

Jesus taught that you could perform the most vile acts known to man and as long as you repent and do not reject him, you would be forgiven.

A philosophical travesty...

I will refer you to the issue of faith versus works. Just so we are clear as to what we are talking about.

Additionally and somewhat related, regarding the God as a sadist comment, that would be one possible interpretation of his character resulting from the character described in the bible, as it now stands. As I told Rick, I actually believe that it is more probable that the confusion over the character of the Christian God results from the later combination of theologies.