Gone Over To the Christian Side
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
I was referring to your comment about the movie. No, obviously it isn't a meaningless event or a myth. My point is that neither would an anti-Christian bias make Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless event or a myth.stretched said:
Yes, Jesus is God - a uniquely identifiable member of the Trinity. But your argument would depend on God being Roman and Jewish, too, which is patently not the case. In other words, "God" did not kill Jesus; Jesus died at the hands of men.
Your alternative would be to take a roundabout way of asserting the same thing: that Jesus would not have had to die if God had not insisted on punishing sin (i.e. Jesus had to "appease" God's wrath). Without this (you would say irrational and unnecessary) wrath, Jesus could shake the dust from his feet and go back to heaven without a scratch, and everyone would presumably live happily ever after. Perhaps. But my guess is that it would be a half-hearted argument, specifically aimed at discrediting something you don't like. If you will not apply the same "logic" to something you have no problem with, that would expose the emotional nature of your argument.
For instance, you might point to the penalty of death as the reprehensible deed of a malicious God. But the truth is that the real punishment is having to live with sin and its consequences, and a person's whole life is one continuous opportunity for rehabilitation and repentance. Jesus didn't die for a few lesser sins, committed by the more redeemable sections of society; He died for the inevitable consequence of all sin, from least to worse: death. No sin could be unforgivable, except rejecting the means of forgiveness itself.
Did you know the authorities can eliminate all criminals from the world without having to shed a drop of blood? They simply have to lift all laws and declare all actions equal. Make everything legal. If that would not make the authorities seem infinitely good and loving; do you propose it would make God seem so?
Last edited:
Quote Jenyar:
“Yes, Jesus is God - a uniquely identifiable member of the Trinity. But your argument would depend on God being Roman and Jewish, too, which is patently not the case. In other words, "God" did not kill Jesus; Jesus died at the hands of men.”
* This is quite a paradox. You say “Jesus is God”. But, yes, but no, but yes, but no. (apologies to Vicky in Little Britain) So the statement “Jesus is God” is entirely dependant on a qualifier: “a uniquely identifiable member of the Trinity” Yes? Why not then rather say: “Jesus is only one third God”? It is easy to say Jesus is a facet of God, like the Holy Spirit, and the Father. But which facet is in control of the executive function? Are the three facets of God as depicted in the Trinity entirely independent of each other? If not, then how can the God facet, seemingly have nothing to do with dying as the Jesus (son) facet? This entire Trinitarian doctrine is so convoluted it actually makes very little sense. Your counter would be: “You have to be filled with the Holy Spirit to understand.” To simplify this muddle, if you say “Jesus is God”, then God died on the cross. The only way out in my opinion is to boldly state that the Trinity comprises out of 3 distinct gods. The Father god. The son god. And the Holy Spirit god. One god died on the cross, and being “a” god could resurrect himself.
Quote J:
“Your alternative would be to take a roundabout way of asserting the same thing: that Jesus would not have had to die if God had not insisted on punishing sin (i.e. Jesus had to "appease" God's wrath). Without this (you would say irrational and unnecessary) wrath, Jesus could shake the dust from his feet and go back to heaven without a scratch, and everyone would presumably live happily ever after. Perhaps.
* What exactly was the point of Jesus death on the cross? To cleanse the sins of mankind? If as you say, Jesus is God, you simply cannot escape the fact that the predestined “TEMPORARY” death of Jesus was no real sacrifice. It was simply part of a play in which the plot could not survive without this particular scene. And the play was written way before the production was staged.
Quote J:
“But my guess is that it would be a half-hearted argument, specifically aimed at discrediting something you don't like. If you will not apply the same "logic" to something you have no problem with, that would expose the emotional nature of your argument.”
* I don’t understand what you are trying to say here?
Quote J:
“For instance, you might point to the penalty of death as the reprehensible deed of a malicious God. But the truth is that the real punishment is having to live with sin and its consequences, and a person's whole life is one continuous opportunity for rehabilitation and repentance. Jesus didn't die for a few lesser sins, committed by the more redeemable sections of society; He died for the inevitable consequence of all sin, from least to worse: death. No sin could be unforgivable, except rejecting the means of forgiveness itself.”
* As above, the sacrifice was of a TEMPORARY nature. No big sacrifice at all.
Quote J:
“Did you know the authorities can eliminate all criminals from the world without having to shed a drop of blood? They simply have to lift all laws and declare all actions equal. Make everything legal. If that would not make the authorities seem infinitely good and loving; do you propose it would make God seem so?”
* I strongly believe that if the authorities (in this case, omnipotent authorities) ensured that all citizens had adequate understanding, food and shelter, it would seem to indicate that the authorities are infinitely good and loving. The creator in the Christian Bible, intentionally created, for whatever purpose, the world we see today. According to your doctrine it was pre-ordained. No?
“Yes, Jesus is God - a uniquely identifiable member of the Trinity. But your argument would depend on God being Roman and Jewish, too, which is patently not the case. In other words, "God" did not kill Jesus; Jesus died at the hands of men.”
* This is quite a paradox. You say “Jesus is God”. But, yes, but no, but yes, but no. (apologies to Vicky in Little Britain) So the statement “Jesus is God” is entirely dependant on a qualifier: “a uniquely identifiable member of the Trinity” Yes? Why not then rather say: “Jesus is only one third God”? It is easy to say Jesus is a facet of God, like the Holy Spirit, and the Father. But which facet is in control of the executive function? Are the three facets of God as depicted in the Trinity entirely independent of each other? If not, then how can the God facet, seemingly have nothing to do with dying as the Jesus (son) facet? This entire Trinitarian doctrine is so convoluted it actually makes very little sense. Your counter would be: “You have to be filled with the Holy Spirit to understand.” To simplify this muddle, if you say “Jesus is God”, then God died on the cross. The only way out in my opinion is to boldly state that the Trinity comprises out of 3 distinct gods. The Father god. The son god. And the Holy Spirit god. One god died on the cross, and being “a” god could resurrect himself.
Quote J:
“Your alternative would be to take a roundabout way of asserting the same thing: that Jesus would not have had to die if God had not insisted on punishing sin (i.e. Jesus had to "appease" God's wrath). Without this (you would say irrational and unnecessary) wrath, Jesus could shake the dust from his feet and go back to heaven without a scratch, and everyone would presumably live happily ever after. Perhaps.
* What exactly was the point of Jesus death on the cross? To cleanse the sins of mankind? If as you say, Jesus is God, you simply cannot escape the fact that the predestined “TEMPORARY” death of Jesus was no real sacrifice. It was simply part of a play in which the plot could not survive without this particular scene. And the play was written way before the production was staged.
Quote J:
“But my guess is that it would be a half-hearted argument, specifically aimed at discrediting something you don't like. If you will not apply the same "logic" to something you have no problem with, that would expose the emotional nature of your argument.”
* I don’t understand what you are trying to say here?
Quote J:
“For instance, you might point to the penalty of death as the reprehensible deed of a malicious God. But the truth is that the real punishment is having to live with sin and its consequences, and a person's whole life is one continuous opportunity for rehabilitation and repentance. Jesus didn't die for a few lesser sins, committed by the more redeemable sections of society; He died for the inevitable consequence of all sin, from least to worse: death. No sin could be unforgivable, except rejecting the means of forgiveness itself.”
* As above, the sacrifice was of a TEMPORARY nature. No big sacrifice at all.
Quote J:
“Did you know the authorities can eliminate all criminals from the world without having to shed a drop of blood? They simply have to lift all laws and declare all actions equal. Make everything legal. If that would not make the authorities seem infinitely good and loving; do you propose it would make God seem so?”
* I strongly believe that if the authorities (in this case, omnipotent authorities) ensured that all citizens had adequate understanding, food and shelter, it would seem to indicate that the authorities are infinitely good and loving. The creator in the Christian Bible, intentionally created, for whatever purpose, the world we see today. According to your doctrine it was pre-ordained. No?
I won't say “You have to be filled with the Holy Spirit to understand,” you should know me better than that. And I won't claim to have the "physics" of God's being all worked out either. You'll run into the same difficulties if you tried to explain your own existence in terms of name, authority, dimension and function. Just think about the nature vs. nurture debate. We're talking about different levels, and our language is limited to describe anything that unifies these levels into a comprehensive whole. Like Paul said, we know only in part, not yet fully.stretched said:
You might note that saying "This entire Trinitarian doctrine is so convoluted it actually makes very little sense", just like "this whole field of quantum physics is so convoluted that it makes very little sense" (or as Einstein put it, "The quanta really are a hopeless mess") makes no difference to the reality or the actuality of what we are attempting to describe. In the early days of Quantum theory, Einstein made the remark:
There are therefore now two theories of light, both indispensable, and - as one must admit today despite twenty years of tremendous effort on the part of theoretical physicists - without any logical connection.
It simply meant they had to find other ways to resolve the paradox.It might help if you distinguished between the reality and single identity of God, and the various ways of expression or existence attributed to Him. While Jesus is God, his humanity is not all God is. So even when God died a human death on the cross, God did not cease to exist as God. That is why we may interpret Christ's death as an act of God's love. Death "had no hold on him"; Jesus did not "fit" into a human death (similarly, not even creation can contain God, 2 Chr. 2:6). For us, death swallows everything, and the universe contains our whole existence; to die is to loose all we are in the universe. But so far as God inhabits or reveals himself inside a limited dimension, that dimension does not limit Him in return - we still encounter God. In Jesus, we encountered no less than God ("I am") himself, so with His spirit, even in angels one might encounter God's own voice (see for instance Gen. 31:11-13).
You asked about the executive function. In 1 Cor. 15:24-28 we have this interesting comment from Paul:
Then the end will come, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
We might understand it this way: the "seams" were introduced for a reason, and will disappear when they have fulfilled their purpose. We may encounter God in different aspects, but we are still encountering the same God in every way.You seem to be suffering from a common misunderstanding about the meaning and validity of Christ's sacrifice. Here's the answer I usually give (if it doesn't answer your questions, please say so and we can discuss it):
The value of Jesus' sacrifice lay not in what He lost, but in what He gained for us. God didn't need the sacrifice, we did. His sacrifice was sufficient because his obedience and his faith was complete - he provided everything that was necessary for forgiveness - not for any other reason. The amount He suffered was incidental to that, even though at the time it was probably the cruelest and most shameful death imaginable. As a human being, Jesus died fully as any other human would, with the same pain and loss. A man can only give up this life - a mortal dying a mortal death - but God gave up his very deity to die a human death. His only greater "resource" was that He remained the immortal God - like a person doesn't lose his identity (who he was) when he dies, neither did God - and that is also our comfort when we are "clothed with Christ" (Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 15:45-53). The default state of our nature is death, the default state of God's nature is life; We return to dust, Jesus returned to God.
If a friend took a bullet to save your life, but survives, you don't ask how much of a "sacrifice" it really was before you will "accept" it. That you are alive is the proof that his sacrifice was sufficient; that the bullet meant for you hit him instead is evidence that he indeed made a conscious sacrifice: he considered your life more important than his own. Jesus stepped between the bullet - the inevitable consequence of sin - and all men. We have no doubt of God's love and forgiveness in Christ, and that is our evidence that Christ's sacrifice reconciled us with God. Why would I now move out from behind Christ, and make his sacrifice in vain for me?
Jesus' sacrificial act was performed "once for all... thus securing an eternal redemption," and therefore NOT temporary (Heb. 9:12).If a friend took a bullet to save your life, but survives, you don't ask how much of a "sacrifice" it really was before you will "accept" it. That you are alive is the proof that his sacrifice was sufficient; that the bullet meant for you hit him instead is evidence that he indeed made a conscious sacrifice: he considered your life more important than his own. Jesus stepped between the bullet - the inevitable consequence of sin - and all men. We have no doubt of God's love and forgiveness in Christ, and that is our evidence that Christ's sacrifice reconciled us with God. Why would I now move out from behind Christ, and make his sacrifice in vain for me?
I have no "doctrine" of my own apart from the Bible, and I know of no Biblical support that our world as it exists now was in any sense "pre-ordained". It is experiencing frustration under the burden of sin and death (what might be called the "law of entropy") as it waits for its redemption (Rom. 8:22-23). The only places the Bibles mentions predetermination, it is in reference to those He chooses for salvation (the "elect"). All other pre-ordained decisions (i.e. promises) are "yes" in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). So there is no reason to complain; if anything has been pre-ordained, we can only benefit by it: by knowing the outcome of our present course, and what God's decision will be. It is when we diverge from this course that our understanding becomes conflicted, that we hoard our food, and fortify our shelters against other people, because then we diverge from God's expressed will. It's only logical that we will then experience effects that would contradict God's will, and therefore His divine character. What we see in the world doesn't reflect God very accurately, just as people who were created in His image, seldom reflect His image accurately. But when the truth is distorted, there isn't much point blaming the truth for that...
Last edited:
Quote Jenyar:
"this whole field of quantum physics is so convoluted that it makes very little sense"
* Touche. Heh.
Quote J:
“ It simply meant they had to find other ways to resolve the paradox.”
* Simplisticly put: Why the paradox?
Quote J:
“It might help if you distinguished between the reality and single identity of God, and the various ways of expression or existence attributed to Him. While Jesus is God, his humanity is not all God is. So even when God died a human death on the cross, God did not cease to exist as God. That is why we may interpret Christ's death as an act of God's love. Death "had no hold on him"; Jesus did not "fit" into a human death (similarly, not even creation can contain God, 2 Chr. 2:6). For us, death swallows everything, and the universe contains our whole existence; to die is to loose all we are in the universe. But so far as God inhabits or reveals himself inside a limited dimension, that dimension does not limit Him in return - we still encounter God. In Jesus, we encountered no less than God ("I am") himself, so with His spirit, even in angels one might encounter God's own voice (see for instance Gen. 31:11-13).”
* That is nicely put Jenyar. For the moment, what I can take from the above is: even though I, as a human, cannot fully grasp the logic involved in Trinitarian doctrine, I concede that my knowledge and understanding is “limited”. The door remains open a crack.
Quote J:
“We might understand it this way: the "seams" were introduced for a reason, and will disappear when they have fulfilled their purpose. We may encounter God in different aspects, but we are still encountering the same God in every way.”
* OK. For now, I will let go of the question that logic begs: “Why would an omnipotent god be so complicated?” … and once again concede that my understanding is “limited”. Albeit I am limited by my very “humanness”.
Quote J:
“Jesus stepped between the bullet - the inevitable consequence of sin - and all men. We have no doubt of God's love and forgiveness in Christ, and that is our evidence that Christ's sacrifice reconciled us with God. Why would I now move out from behind Christ, and make his sacrifice in vain for me?”
Quote J:
“I have no "doctrine" of my own apart from the Bible, and I know of no Biblical support that our world as it exists now was in any sense "pre-ordained".
* Your explanation is understandable, however I now have to go right back to the question as to why god allowed sin in the first place. Also to the many quotes in the Bible indicating god’s omnipotence and omniscience. If we agree that God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then as the ultimate creator of “all”, his creation must knowingly and willingly include the concept, and implementation of “sin”.
Quote J:
“The only places the Bibles mentions predetermination, it is in reference to those He chooses for salvation (the "elect"). All other pre-ordained decisions (i.e. promises) are "yes" in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).”
* How does predetermination escape the equation if we acknowledge that god is the “Alpha and Omega”? Also if the “elect” is predetermined, why bother with faith. It was decided way before you were born?
I don’t accept omnipotence in percentages. It’s all or nothing. Which is perhaps where the Gnostic Christians had a point.
Quote J:
“It's only logical that we will then experience effects that would contradict God's will, and therefore His divine character. What we see in the world doesn't reflect God very accurately, just as people who were created in His image, seldom reflect His image accurately. But when the truth is distorted, there isn't much point blaming the truth for that... “
* Looking at the Bible mankind has never been a successful venture for God. He has been smiting mankind for various reasons over the ages. It seems the world has never reflected god very accurately. Why create man in his image if the reflection is imperfect? What exactly is the point? Also did the “truth” not create the “truth”?
"this whole field of quantum physics is so convoluted that it makes very little sense"
* Touche. Heh.
Quote J:
“ It simply meant they had to find other ways to resolve the paradox.”
* Simplisticly put: Why the paradox?
Quote J:
“It might help if you distinguished between the reality and single identity of God, and the various ways of expression or existence attributed to Him. While Jesus is God, his humanity is not all God is. So even when God died a human death on the cross, God did not cease to exist as God. That is why we may interpret Christ's death as an act of God's love. Death "had no hold on him"; Jesus did not "fit" into a human death (similarly, not even creation can contain God, 2 Chr. 2:6). For us, death swallows everything, and the universe contains our whole existence; to die is to loose all we are in the universe. But so far as God inhabits or reveals himself inside a limited dimension, that dimension does not limit Him in return - we still encounter God. In Jesus, we encountered no less than God ("I am") himself, so with His spirit, even in angels one might encounter God's own voice (see for instance Gen. 31:11-13).”
* That is nicely put Jenyar. For the moment, what I can take from the above is: even though I, as a human, cannot fully grasp the logic involved in Trinitarian doctrine, I concede that my knowledge and understanding is “limited”. The door remains open a crack.
Quote J:
“We might understand it this way: the "seams" were introduced for a reason, and will disappear when they have fulfilled their purpose. We may encounter God in different aspects, but we are still encountering the same God in every way.”
* OK. For now, I will let go of the question that logic begs: “Why would an omnipotent god be so complicated?” … and once again concede that my understanding is “limited”. Albeit I am limited by my very “humanness”.
Quote J:
“Jesus stepped between the bullet - the inevitable consequence of sin - and all men. We have no doubt of God's love and forgiveness in Christ, and that is our evidence that Christ's sacrifice reconciled us with God. Why would I now move out from behind Christ, and make his sacrifice in vain for me?”
Quote J:
“I have no "doctrine" of my own apart from the Bible, and I know of no Biblical support that our world as it exists now was in any sense "pre-ordained".
* Your explanation is understandable, however I now have to go right back to the question as to why god allowed sin in the first place. Also to the many quotes in the Bible indicating god’s omnipotence and omniscience. If we agree that God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then as the ultimate creator of “all”, his creation must knowingly and willingly include the concept, and implementation of “sin”.
Quote J:
“The only places the Bibles mentions predetermination, it is in reference to those He chooses for salvation (the "elect"). All other pre-ordained decisions (i.e. promises) are "yes" in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).”
* How does predetermination escape the equation if we acknowledge that god is the “Alpha and Omega”? Also if the “elect” is predetermined, why bother with faith. It was decided way before you were born?
I don’t accept omnipotence in percentages. It’s all or nothing. Which is perhaps where the Gnostic Christians had a point.
Quote J:
“It's only logical that we will then experience effects that would contradict God's will, and therefore His divine character. What we see in the world doesn't reflect God very accurately, just as people who were created in His image, seldom reflect His image accurately. But when the truth is distorted, there isn't much point blaming the truth for that... “
* Looking at the Bible mankind has never been a successful venture for God. He has been smiting mankind for various reasons over the ages. It seems the world has never reflected god very accurately. Why create man in his image if the reflection is imperfect? What exactly is the point? Also did the “truth” not create the “truth”?
A pardox only exists until it's been resolved. God might not be comprehended, but He has been apprehended in a way that necessitates the concept of a Trinity. As CS Lewis put it:stretched said:
"If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions." From Mere Christianity
Fair enough. Just keep in mind that we do not have to be able to comprehend something to be able to apprehend it.
Logic doesn't really answer "why?" questions. We can at most establish a probable cause for a certain effect, plotting the path of events or thoughts inbetween. In effect, logic just states an identity very elaborately: "It is what it is, and this is how it is". Think about the very basic question: why is there something and not nothing? You can follow logical paths in any direction, using all kinds of observations, but they still won't answer the question.
Just because we can't logically explain why we exist or why life is so complex, that doesn't mean we're not alive.
God actually didn't allow sin, which is why it exists (i.e. there was a will to disobey, and this disobedience was called sin). The root of your question is why God allowed us to be truly free. The traditional answer is that real love can't be programmed. What allows us to love and live our own lives, is also what allows us to sin - to live apart from God and outside His will. Why did God take such a chance with his creation? Because He also provided a means to atone for sin, to receive forgiveness, and to restore the broken relationship. He knew that not even sin could separate us from Him.
Should God have penalized all life because some would choose against Him? That would have meant God himself were defeated by the consequences of sin even before He did anything.
As things go, innocent people do suffer for the indiscretions of the guilty, like children who suffer for choices their parents made. And likewise, we are suffering from the consequences of sin (as God warned), but God doesn't accept this state as how it should be, or condones sin now that we're caught in it. Instead He provided a spiritual life that could represent our true state (like the true innocence of someone who had been falsely imprisoned) which would translate into our eternal inheritance.
It's a question of knowledge. We can't know who the "elect" are, except through faith in Jesus' promises. Needless to say, if you don't believe Jesus when He says you are one of the elect, it won't make any difference to your life. You won't act with the faith of someone who is certain of His salvation.
God certainly is the beginning and the end of all things, and "in Him we live and move and have our being", but that does not take us out of the equation, does it? God created something other than himself, who, as an image of Him, are no less free than He is. People exercize that freedom by become "gods" in their own right, assuming their own moral authority, and often in opposition to God. It creates a very real conflict, but it doesn't mean God actually loses His eminence.
The Bible always showed man's venture in contrast to God's. While God's ventures are always successful (being eternal, there is never a time when it could be said He has failed, past tense), man's ventures are as fickle as his whims, and fail as often as men die. Where you only see "smiting" and various punishments, the people of the Bible saw an ever-trustworthy road of salvation, redemption, and justice. Obviously from the perspective of the ones being judged, one would see judgement, but the message of the prophets has always been that God's righteousness means salvation - He judges in order to correct, and without His correction there is no hope. The irony is that every proof of sin's consequences have been used as accusations against God, as if His warnings are what caused the results.
The argument, it seems, is that if God did not punish sin, nobody would have to suffer from it. The prophets, on the other hand, argued that if God's warnings were heeded, the consequences would not accumulate faster than people could deal with them, and they would not be tempted to think their situation is hopeless and abandon God, making it truly hopeless. Prophets would point God's character - His mercy, justice and compassion - and appeal to people to repent. They would refer to various examples of faith, righteousness and wisdom, examples where God delivered people from hopelessness and oppression, shown how forgiveness was always available, and reminded people that God's faithfulness could be counted on. Exercising those qualities, in imitation of God, would have similar results on the world around them. The "point" is to give people a secure hope to hold onto, and empower them to manifest that hope in their own lives and in others, in effect: to represent God to the world and to demonstrate His kingdom, in spite of sin and its consequences closing in all around us.
Our purpose doesn't depend on us being God, just on giving off the light we are able to reflect from Him. In the process we will conform more and more to His image (of whom the blueprint is Christ). Whether Christ's life was a "successful venture" depends on your perpecive, once again - whether it's seen from the perspective of belief in God or from outside it. Or as Jesus put it:
John 18:36-38
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
"What is truth?" Pilate asked...
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
"What is truth?" Pilate asked...
Last edited:
Quote J:
“Fair enough. Just keep in mind that we do not have to be able to comprehend something to be able to apprehend it. “
* I concur.
Quote J:
“Think about the very basic question: why is there something and not nothing?”
* I do dwell on this concept. But is ‘nothing” perhaps not a more profound level of “something”? When you sleep, and do not dream, is that mental state “something” or “nothing”? To the sleeper the answer is unknown, to the observer of the sleeper, the answer is more known, but not conclusive.
Quote J:
“Just because we can't logically explain why we exist or why life is so complex, that doesn't mean we're not alive.”
* And once we realise we are alive, we start inventing gods to explain the complexity? We seem to be programmed to achieve self consciousness. Each culture evolved their own mythology. Why would one doctrine contain more “truth” than another? Ego.
Quote J:
“God actually didn't allow sin, which is why it exists (i.e. there was a will to disobey, and this disobedience was called sin). The root of your question is why God allowed us to be truly free. The traditional answer is that real love can't be programmed. What allows us to love and live our own lives, is also what allows us to sin - to live apart from God and outside His will. Why did God take such a chance with his creation? Because He also provided a means to atone for sin, to receive forgiveness, and to restore the broken relationship. He knew that not even sin could separate us from Him.”
* No matter how I try, I cannot fathom this circular logic. It is self perpetuating.
1. Create man. (god saw that it was good)
2. Create temptation. (god sees this as a test of authority?)
3. Punish man for making an (honest?) mistake.
4. Put a plan in place for forgiving man. (humble yourself stupid)
What is the point? God created man as “stupid”. And then is surprised and disappointed that man displays “stupidity”?
Quote J:
“Should God have penalized all life because some would choose against Him? That would have meant God himself were defeated by the consequences of sin even before He did anything.”
* How does the Flood figure in this?
Quote J:
“And likewise, we are suffering from the consequences of sin (as God warned), but God doesn't accept this state as how it should be, or condones sin now that we're caught in it. Instead He provided a spiritual life that could represent our true state (like the true innocence of someone who had been falsely imprisoned) which would translate into our eternal inheritance.”
“(like the true innocence of someone who had been falsely imprisoned)”
* And the Garden of Eden was not a prison? And Adam was not a victim of circumstance? Was there a spiritual life before he Fall?
Quote J:
“God created something other than himself, who, as an image of Him, are no less free than He is. People exercize that freedom by become "gods" in their own right, assuming their own moral authority, and often in opposition to God. It creates a very real conflict, but it doesn't mean God actually loses His eminence.”
* Then surely we are entitled that freedom? How can an omnipotent god have any REAL opposition? You have a supercar but you are limited to 60kph? Moral thought existed way before Christianity.
Quote J:
“The irony is that every proof of sin's consequences have been used as accusations against God, as if His warnings are what caused the results.”
* I see your point. But we were created “stupid”, so we needed those warnings. Why were we not created “cleverer”?
Quote J:
“The "point" is to give people a secure hope to hold onto, and empower them to manifest that hope in their own lives and in others, in effect: to represent God to the world and to demonstrate His kingdom, in spite of sin and its consequences closing in all around us.”
* There is always a chance that it is false hope. When energy could perhaps be spent in solving issues instead of “hoping” for solutions.
Quote J:
“Our purpose doesn't depend on us being God, just on giving off the light we are able to reflect from Him. In the process we will conform more and more to His image (of whom the blueprint is Christ). “
* Or the blueprint could be Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc.
Quote J:
“"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
"What is truth?" Pilate asked...”
* The truth seems to be VERY subjective. Can you sum your truth up in a nutshell?
“Fair enough. Just keep in mind that we do not have to be able to comprehend something to be able to apprehend it. “
* I concur.
Quote J:
“Think about the very basic question: why is there something and not nothing?”
* I do dwell on this concept. But is ‘nothing” perhaps not a more profound level of “something”? When you sleep, and do not dream, is that mental state “something” or “nothing”? To the sleeper the answer is unknown, to the observer of the sleeper, the answer is more known, but not conclusive.
Quote J:
“Just because we can't logically explain why we exist or why life is so complex, that doesn't mean we're not alive.”
* And once we realise we are alive, we start inventing gods to explain the complexity? We seem to be programmed to achieve self consciousness. Each culture evolved their own mythology. Why would one doctrine contain more “truth” than another? Ego.
Quote J:
“God actually didn't allow sin, which is why it exists (i.e. there was a will to disobey, and this disobedience was called sin). The root of your question is why God allowed us to be truly free. The traditional answer is that real love can't be programmed. What allows us to love and live our own lives, is also what allows us to sin - to live apart from God and outside His will. Why did God take such a chance with his creation? Because He also provided a means to atone for sin, to receive forgiveness, and to restore the broken relationship. He knew that not even sin could separate us from Him.”
* No matter how I try, I cannot fathom this circular logic. It is self perpetuating.
1. Create man. (god saw that it was good)
2. Create temptation. (god sees this as a test of authority?)
3. Punish man for making an (honest?) mistake.
4. Put a plan in place for forgiving man. (humble yourself stupid)
What is the point? God created man as “stupid”. And then is surprised and disappointed that man displays “stupidity”?
Quote J:
“Should God have penalized all life because some would choose against Him? That would have meant God himself were defeated by the consequences of sin even before He did anything.”
* How does the Flood figure in this?
Quote J:
“And likewise, we are suffering from the consequences of sin (as God warned), but God doesn't accept this state as how it should be, or condones sin now that we're caught in it. Instead He provided a spiritual life that could represent our true state (like the true innocence of someone who had been falsely imprisoned) which would translate into our eternal inheritance.”
“(like the true innocence of someone who had been falsely imprisoned)”
* And the Garden of Eden was not a prison? And Adam was not a victim of circumstance? Was there a spiritual life before he Fall?
Quote J:
“God created something other than himself, who, as an image of Him, are no less free than He is. People exercize that freedom by become "gods" in their own right, assuming their own moral authority, and often in opposition to God. It creates a very real conflict, but it doesn't mean God actually loses His eminence.”
* Then surely we are entitled that freedom? How can an omnipotent god have any REAL opposition? You have a supercar but you are limited to 60kph? Moral thought existed way before Christianity.
Quote J:
“The irony is that every proof of sin's consequences have been used as accusations against God, as if His warnings are what caused the results.”
* I see your point. But we were created “stupid”, so we needed those warnings. Why were we not created “cleverer”?
Quote J:
“The "point" is to give people a secure hope to hold onto, and empower them to manifest that hope in their own lives and in others, in effect: to represent God to the world and to demonstrate His kingdom, in spite of sin and its consequences closing in all around us.”
* There is always a chance that it is false hope. When energy could perhaps be spent in solving issues instead of “hoping” for solutions.
Quote J:
“Our purpose doesn't depend on us being God, just on giving off the light we are able to reflect from Him. In the process we will conform more and more to His image (of whom the blueprint is Christ). “
* Or the blueprint could be Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc.
Quote J:
“"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
"What is truth?" Pilate asked...”
* The truth seems to be VERY subjective. Can you sum your truth up in a nutshell?
This is just metaphysical speculation. I'm talking about the raw material for such speculation - the sleeper exists, even if his dreams are empty, and it is only the state of awakening that allows a state of sleep to be known, whatever that state might include or exclude.stretched said:
Not just ego, although that certainly influences what is accepted as truth and what isn't. Shall we say that Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were the most egotistic, and therefore their theories ended up being accepted as truth, against everybody who believed otherwise?
Many gods were invented before complexity became a problem. There was no need to explain anything away, just to express a spiritual realization. A vague awareness of this "programming" would be enough to spark speculation, and speculation can lead to all sorts of hypotheses, not all of which can be simultaneously true - however much faith their proponents have in them or however much we wish everything were equally true. It would certainly help us to "all just get along", but even happy lemmings can come to an unhappy end.
After Adam and Eve's children rejected the faith of their parents, it would only be a short time before some would be unable to shake the presence of a "higher power" and start looking for Him/it wherever it was convenient. The sun (for the crops) or the trees (for their fruit) or maybe the moon (because it seems to have a life of its own). Maybe all of them. As long as one is unwilling to believe that everything is creation, and all creation has a Creator, the options will seem endless (and all equally valid possibilities).
If this was the "logic" you were trying to fathom, no wonder you're having problems with it. It's not what I said, and it's not what the Bible says. Your inferences are problematic, because they presuppose that God was being malicious, and try to make the data fit this. Do you have a particularly strong faith in this malicious God?
Some remarks on your logic. "Temptation" is not a corporeal entity. Like evil and darkness, it is not a created thing, it is a derived thing. God created light, calls it good, and this tells you about God's thoughts on light. Darkness is a side-effect, but it has its place. Similarly, the yearning for knowledge has its place, like the desire for nourishing food. But the same yearning can be directed at forbidden knowledge, or poisonous food, or trying to do work that requires daylight, in the dark. The egotistic thing would be to demand that God created everything for the express pampering of man, so that he might enjoy a life of no responsibilities and no consequences. Every child has this wish, and every parent knows that is not what freedom is for. Reality is called reality for a reason, and the reality of the garden was that its life-giving tree was forbidden, and that life was governed by greater principles. All the other trees were accessible, and sufficient; there was a whole new world (literally) for them to be curious about, and to seek knowledge about. But they decided to take from the forbidden fruit - chose freedom above principle, lie above truth, themslves above God. The serpent was punished for his part in their sin, but Adam and Eve were responsible for their own part in it. If the consequences weren't going to be real, then God's warning would just have been a test.
I challenge you to demonstrate that Genesis portrays God as unjust, and Adam's mistake as "honest" rather than a conscious disobedience. If you want such an interpretation, you'll have to write your own Bible, and believe in your own version of God. Others have.
Lastly, the plan was not put in place at the moment, like a contingency - it was a continuation of God's intention at creation: to let his creation have life. But now, more than ever, they would need to have faith in Him - because the consequences of their sin would make a natural spiritual life all the more challenging.
You mean, how does Noah - and all subsequent generations, including you - figure in this?
I presume you have already answered these questions with a confident affirmative in your mind, but I'll answer anyway. The Garden of Eden was, literally, paradise. It was no more a "prison" than the earth is today a prison. Next time you're enjoying some beautiful aspect of nature, watching another sunset, looking out the window through sifting rain, or out reading on the beach, imagine an earth without sin, and try thinking of it as "prison". I'm almost certain the absurdity of such a thought would strike you immediately. Adam was victim of his own sin and poor judgement, as we all often are - and his spiritual life certainly experienced a major crisis as a result. Like with any trust once broken, it would leave a scar. But life with scars is still life, if you live it, and his spiritual life was still a spiritual life, because he knew God.
The problem isn't that it's opposition, it is that it's destructive. You have a supercar but you're limited to paved roads. And when there is a bend in the road, your freedom allows you to slow down.
Do you feel stupid? The tree represented a piece of the garden that was God's property, not man's. Adam might have been 100% clever within his own realm, but he was out of his depth on God's turf. When Adam ate from the tree, he presumed moral precedence to God's authority, and since God is, by definition, the ultimate authority, Adam found himself treading thin air. There could be no other consequence to his trespass. The laws that allowed Adam to think and exist, like some moral gravity, also allowed him to fall when he disobeyed it. It also happens when men boldly trespass on the realm of birds, and step off a cliff. He wasn't created stupid, but he certainly acted that way. It's unfortunate when it happens, but there's no point complaining about it.
You presume that hope is static thing. When a mine collapses, and there is hope of a way out, does it follow that those trapped will sit there and wait? One acts on hope, which is why it is such a powerful force - it empowers people. But like the lemmings I mentioned before, it's because of the dangers of false hope that one can't just accept every "truth" that happens to wander by. One has a responsibility towards it, and towards yourself. This is where principles come in - laws - like the one God gave Adam. It would have guided his life if he listened to it, but he wandered after lies, and if it weren't for God, there would have been no hope beyond that.
And it's no coincidence that men whose moral teachings overlap this way are often thrown in the same category; they were not always powerful, but they were (broadly speaking) good and wise. Yet none of them claimed to be the Son of God and in complete, indubitible unity of purpose with Him (John 8:28; 10:28; Matt. 11:27) - these are great and intelligent people who were wise enough not to make claims to divinity unless they believed it themselves (though followers often had other ideas). In fact, among these figures, only Mohammed made any claims about God, and those depended on the truth of Hebrew and Christian testimonies. Beside the occasional egomaniacs and less wise men, the only other group of men who routinely claimed divinity were the Romans, since their theology made it a natural claim for powerful men. Hebrew theology made it practically impossible, and yet Jesus - a Jew that even the Jews respected for his wisdom - made exactly that claim: rationally, deliberately, but with humility, carefully lived out with the steady momentum of a planet in orbit. Jesus never tried to explain it, He left the conclusions to themselves ("wisdom is proved right by her actions"), and when Thomas said to Him, "My Lord and my God!", Jesus answered... "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29).
Truth can't be owned. Like Jesus says, it's a side. Yes, people are subjective - their relation to the truth differs - but that's not the same as the truth itself being subjective (as in "relative"). When one has difficulty with something, there are two options: move the goalposts - let "the truth" fit your ability - or become aware of your limitations and believe what can be known.
You have no trouble believing some observations that have been made about nature (something you demonstrate every time you take a pill for something, trust a bridge you cross, start a car, or take a plane - they all depend on a truth that remains as it had been observed and implemented; relying on purely subjective truths would be disasterous). Even if you don't understand the theory involved, you can certainly appreciate their conclusions when they intersect your lifestyle. We're speaking about the same realm and definition of "truth". If you really believed the truth was "VERY" subjective, you would have acted accordingly. But because religion falls for you into a category where truth more or less doesn't matter, you can afford to think of it as subjective - it's "all the same" to you. It just means you've moved the goalpost.
Last edited: