Question Concerning Christian Theology

[Tyler]

Perhaps a Moslem could enlighten me on this second question; why Christians are so hard to talk to.

Being "a good Jew" requires rigorous study of the Torah and constant debate as to it's meaning. It is a mitzvah to discuss the Torah; I believe this is true with both Jews and non-Jews. This combined with the legalist structure of Judaism creates a culture whereby debate is healthy, encouraged and questioning is necessary.

Being "a good Christian", in one interpretation of the Bible, seems to only require accepting that Christ died for your sins. Nothing more, really. Being a good person and not breaking God's rules are also important and smiled upon, but are not necessary to "win the kingdom".

I think this explains the divide between Jews and Christians on religious debate. Whereas most students of Judaism you meet will sit down and discuss at great length the Torah, most Christians don't really care to do so. They'd rather avoid the hard questions, whereas Jews seem to find the hard questions most interesting and therefore most suitable for debate. (Note: this is not to say I agree with the side of the debate they fall on!)

Now, Christians also have a command to spread the Word. But (a) again, this is not necessary to "win the kingdom" (b) is stated only as spreading the word of Christ, rather than increasing theological knowledge or openness.

So where does the Moslem character come from? What is the Quran's stance on the need for debate on (as opposed to repetition or meditation on) the scripture? What is the stance on debating scripture with the infidel? Etc.

edit to add:
The whole idea of "winning the kingdom" also strikes me as adding to this difference. For Christians the idea of scripture is to get them into heaven. For Jews, the idea of scripture is to better understand God the creator. Christianity in most of it's forms places a strongest importance on getting into heaven and a "personal relationship with Christ". Whereas Judaism places the emphasis on communal knowledge and understanding, which obviously requires communication.

So, again, where does Islam sit on this line?

 

[Adstar]

I think there's a fair point to make in Christianity nullifying a certain meaning of sacrifice. I've also never understood why religious people were so sad when a relative died. They always say "well, he went to a better place" but they don't act like it.

If i love someone and they are a close companion and they die and i am sad it is not due to a lack of faith. It does not matter if people have faith or not. People facing 20, 30, 40 years separation from a dear one will be sad and they will mourn.

If I was 100% certain that death meant heaven, I would be happy and excited for any family member who died (and had accepted Christ beforehand).

You cannot say this if you have never been in the situation. I'd say you would be like most people when they face the death of a loved one. You would mourn.

In fact, this seems to be a common thread among many Moslems, and something I understand much more on their interpretation of text than on the Christian understanding. Why be bloody sad? Didn't the greatest thing imaginable just happen to your loved one? Isn't that a cause for happiness and celebration??

Myopic view, Didn't you see the extreme distress of islamic mothers in ghaza at the deaths of their loved ones shown on TV news recently? In fact when i see muslims in mourning they more often than not seemingly out do their western counterparts in the distress measures.

As for sacrifice, it can still exist but I don't see how it is even mentionable in terms of "sacrificing one's life". The word, typically, means giving something up in exchange for something less desired. Aren't heaven and the kingdom of God the greatest things imaginable? In which case, giving up your mortal life means giving up earthly existence for a far greater existence. Which is not 'sacrifice'. It is, instead, kind of like a promotion.

Jesus did not give up His life to get to heaven. He already had Heaven. He was in the beginning with God and He was God.

(Note that 'sacrifice' is also used in English in the sense of "giving up one thing for another" irrespective of which one is greater. If this is the way in which one "sacrifices their own life" or "sacrifices" something else, then I don't see it as particularly commendable.

It matters not a jot if you think it is commendable or not. It matters not a jot if your impressed or not. It matters if you believe it or not and it matters if you trust in the sacrifice for your own salvation.

For instance, if I have a rotten apple in my hand and you offer to trade me the rotten, worm-infested apple for a big, fresh, juicy orange, it could be said that I "sacrificed the rotten apple for a fresh, juicy orange" though we don't often use the word in that way. As earth is sinful and ungodly and imperfect, whereas heaven is perfect and Godly, I don't see how the world 'sacrifice' applies any more than in the rotten apple connotation.

Irrelevant. We not being asked to sacrifice our lives for Eternity in a better place. Jesus was not sacrificing His life for a life in a better place. He already had that. He allowed Himself to be sacrificed to save those who would believe in Him.

Okay, so what did he sacrifice?

Did he sacrifice his own mortal life in exchange for the possible redemption of all future peoples?

If so, I maintain this is not a very impressive sacrifice.

Wether your impressed or not is irrelevant to the issue.

I'm pretty sure you would do the same.

But i could not do the same because i would not be a perfect sinless sacrafice, would i.


All Praise The Ancient Of Day

 

[Adstar]

You don't even need to answer the question. In fact, originally it wasn't a question, it was a proposition. You turned into a question by proposing that I wouldn't actually act in the way I claimed, and that I wouldn't act in the way that so many countless people have acted before me.

But the question is irrelevant. We don't need a hypothetical. We can look at real history (and current events). There has been a phenomenally huge number of people willing to surrender their lives for what they believe to be a greater cause, or to save more human lives. No hypothetical is needed: It has already happened thousands upon thousands of times in human history.

And so now I ask the non-hypothetical question which was the point of this thread; what is remarkable or even notable about the supposed sacrifice - that is, exchanging one wicked thing (earth) for one perfect thing (heaven) - of Jesus Christ?

The answer is it does not matter if you view it as being remarkable or not. The whole exercise is irrelevant.

What matters is that it was the means by which God chose to bring about reconciliation with humanity.

I recognise it as such and am filled with joy that God has made it possible for me to be with Him forever.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Tyler]

If i love someone and they are a close companion and they die and i am sad it is not due to a lack of faith. It does not matter if people have faith or not. People facing 20, 30, 40 years separation from a dear one will be sad and they will mourn.

And I would argue this existent mourning indicates the doubt people have in their own faith. Either that, or simple selfishness.

If a son or daughter goes away to live in a distant country, a parent may feel sad because of (i) fear of the child encountering hardship (ii) personal longing for the child.

In the even of a child dying, which of these reasons cause sadness? It ought not to be (i). After all, the child is going to heaven. Where they will encounter no hardship. Naturally, the reason for sadness ought to be the second. But selfishness is not a virtue and so I can't imagine why religious figures or a religious person would support a parent holding such feelings. Either way, the event is more happy than sad. The child has proceeded to the kingdom of God. That is the greatest thing one could ever hope for. Yes, as a parent, it is natural to have selfish desire to see the child. But I would hope most parents can get over their natural selfishness pretty quickly and just be happy for the child to have a place in the Kingdom.

Myopic view, Didn't you see the extreme distress of islamic mothers in ghaza at the deaths of their loved ones shown on TV news recently? In fact when i see muslims in mourning they more often than not seemingly out do their western counterparts in the distress measures.

Fair point. I guess both exist everywhere.

It matters if you believe it or not and it matters if you trust in the sacrifice for your own salvation.

Okay, completely ignore my personal standing. I really just want to know why it is considered a 'sacrifice'.

But i could not do the same because i would not be a perfect sinless sacrafice, would i.

Right. That's why it's called a hypothetical question. If you don't believe in hypothetical questions, well... Honestly, I don't know how to finish that sentence. Contrary to what some people here seem to think, hypothetical questions can be completely relevant and helpful to a discussion or debate.

The answer is it does not matter if you view it as being remarkable or not. The whole exercise is irrelevant.

What matters is that it was the means by which God chose to bring about reconciliation with humanity.

I recognise it as such and am filled with joy that God has made it possible for me to be with Him forever

The last two parts of your answer I have no problem with.

But you still haven't addressed my question. In what sense was it a sacrifice? What did Jesus sacrifice? What did God sacrifice?

If the answers are Jesus gave up his mortal life and God gave up Jesus' mortal life then I don't consider either to be a sacrifice in the normal use of the word. Sacrifice generally means giving up a greater thing for a lesser thing. Jesus did not give up a greater thing for a lesser thing. Neither did God. This is not meant to imply that the whole of Christianity is threatened by this line of logic. In fact, I don't think this does any disservice to Christianity.

Yet I do think the Church is misrepresenting the act. I think they are, in a way, lying about Jesus' act in an effort to drum up emotionally-based support. Which doesn't seem very Godly.

And so I ask for some sort of alternative answer. I accept that I may be wrong and that Jesus' death may in some way be termed a sacrifice. I just can't see any way in which that is true. And so I wanted to ask if any Christians can explain it to me.

If you can, please go ahead. If not, just tell me so. If you think it's an unimportant question, than just stay at home and stop writing on the thread! I don't really care if you think it's important or not. It's a curiosity I've had for a long time and I think asking a theological question of any type should always be considered relevant to a theist. The Abrahamic tradition has long had many factions that believe study and discourse can be a way to greater understanding of God. While some schools of thought suggest talking and debating subtracts from one's understanding, and that meditation or some other personal form of practice is the only path to greater understanding, I can't imagine a reason why someone with this view would post on a debate form. It would seem to go directly against their philosophy.

So, I assume you are not of the "pure-meditative" camp. In which case, spreading understanding of God ought to be considered a mitzvah (blessing? I'm not sure which word Christians use).

 

[Adstar]

And I would argue this existent mourning indicates the doubt people have in their own faith. Either that, or simple selfishness.

If a son or daughter goes away to live in a distant country, a parent may feel sad because of (i) fear of the child encountering hardship (ii) personal longing for the child.

In the even of a child dying, which of these reasons cause sadness? It ought not to be (i). After all, the child is going to heaven. Where they will encounter no hardship. Naturally, the reason for sadness ought to be the second. But selfishness is not a virtue and so I can't imagine why religious figures or a religious person would support a parent holding such feelings. Either way, the event is more happy than sad. The child has proceeded to the kingdom of God. That is the greatest thing one could ever hope for. Yes, as a parent, it is natural to have selfish desire to see the child. But I would hope most parents can get over their natural selfishness pretty quickly and just be happy for the child to have a place in the Kingdom.

I think we will just have to accept disagreement here. Your simply restating a belief after i have given an explanation.

Okay, completely ignore my personal standing. I really just want to know why it is considered a 'sacrifice'.

The problem with your thinking i believe comes from the starting foundation of it. that being Jesus on a faulty world of suffering and ending with Jesus in a perfect eternity. From that basis we can see Jesus death as a cheap payment for eternity

But your Foundation. Your starting point is Not Correct. I said before that Jesus already Had Heaven. Your mind should have clicked onto what i was getting at then but you seem to be so comfortable with your own reasoning that you resisted it.

Do not start with Jesus on earth. Start in the true beginning with Jesus being with God and being God. Jesus was in heaven at the start. It was a sacrifice for Him to leave the place of perfection and come to a world of suffering even before getting anywhere close to the cross. So the Word took on Flesh and became man, left a State of Perfect Bliss to come down to this shitty, dirty, painful and violent world to be mocked and rejected and to suffer a prolonged and violent death to save sinners.

Right. That's why it's called a hypothetical question. If you don't believe in hypothetical questions, well... Honestly, I don't know how to finish that sentence. Contrary to what some people here seem to think, hypothetical questions can be completely relevant and helpful to a discussion or debate.

A Hypothetical must have a clear relevance to the main question for it to be of use. In this case the hypothetical was not.

But you still haven't addressed my question. In what sense was it a sacrifice? What did Jesus sacrifice? What did God sacrifice?

If the answers are Jesus gave up his mortal life and God gave up Jesus' mortal life then I don't consider either to be a sacrifice in the normal use of the word. Sacrifice generally means giving up a greater thing for a lesser thing. Jesus did not give up a greater thing for a lesser thing. Neither did God. This is not meant to imply that the whole of Christianity is threatened by this line of logic. In fact, I don't think this does any disservice to Christianity.

Yes indeed Jesus gave up a greater thing to assume the position of a lesser thing and to go through the troubles of a lesser thing. Your question has been answered.

Yet I do think the Church is misrepresenting the act. I think they are, in a way, lying about Jesus' act in an effort to drum up emotionally-based support. Which doesn't seem very Godly.

And so I ask for some sort of alternative answer. I accept that I may be wrong and that Jesus' death may in some way be termed a sacrifice. I just can't see any way in which that is true. And so I wanted to ask if any Christians can explain it to me.

If you can, please go ahead. If not, just tell me so. If you think it's an unimportant question, than just stay at home and stop writing on the thread! I don't really care if you think it's important or not. It's a curiosity I've had for a long time and I think asking a theological question of any type should always be considered relevant to a theist. The Abrahamic tradition has long had many factions that believe study and discourse can be a way to greater understanding of God. While some schools of thought suggest talking and debating subtracts from one's understanding, and that meditation or some other personal form of practice is the only path to greater understanding, I can't imagine a reason why someone with this view would post on a debate form. It would seem to go directly against their philosophy.

So, I assume you are not of the "pure-meditative" camp. In which case, spreading understanding of God ought to be considered a mitzvah (blessing? I'm not sure which word Christians use).

You seem to want to come to an assumption about me as quickly as you can. Maybe this discussion is becoming a bit uncomfortable for you.

Oh and Spreading understanding of God is a great Honour and a Joy. Facing the determined attacks of anti-Christs is a blessing because it causes one to seek the truth even more and grow even stronger in faith. Coming to this site full of determined anti-Christs has made me grow in the knowledge of Salvation much indeed.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Tyler]

I think we will just have to accept disagreement here. Your simply restating a belief after i have given an explanation.

You didn't give an explanation, you just stated opposition. You said "people will be sad and they will mourn" but you didn't answer my question of what is the cause of the sadness. I've given two possibilities: (i) selfishness (longing) (ii) self-doubt in their own faith and considering the possibility that maybe there is no God, no heaven, etc. and their child has simply died. What is curious to me about this is that the obvious answer seems to be (ii), whereas if there was no self-doubt, selfishness seems kind of petty. Moreover, I don't think (ii) is a threat to religion in any way. To paraphrase my old rabbi friend "how could I possibly know such a thing for certain? I'm not a prophet."

It's just something peculiar to Christianity from my perspective. Self-doubt in faith is an entirely natural and expected aspect of Jewish life - though laws are to be followed at all time. Maimonides himself had such doubts. It's just strange to me that I've never met a Christian who would say "yes, faced with death itself (or the death of a loved one) I had doubt that my convictions were true."

You acknowledge that man is imperfect. God gave you a brain, presumably with his encouragement to use it. All rationality indicates there is no particular reason one religion may be more true than another. You have faith, belief. That's fine. I understand that religion requires one leap of faith before someone can return to rational thinking, and I'm not going to judge anyone on that here. But having made that leap of faith, I would imagine God himself would be surprised if there were no moments of doubt. Didn't Christ - who is Lord - have doubt? If Christ himself can have doubt, why does it seem so hard for mortals to admit?

So the Word took on Flesh and became man, left a State of Perfect Bliss to come down to this shitty, dirty, painful and violent world to be mocked and rejected and to suffer a prolonged and violent death to save sinners.

So then the sacrifice God made was in the act of coming down to earth? Rather than in the act of the crucifixion? I think this is a more reasonable answer.

But then it begs the question; what's with the passion plays and the constant reminder that Christ sacrificed his body and "life" for humanity? If you're saying God's leaving the bliss of Heaven and purity to come down to this craphole was his sacrifice, I'm left unsure of why every time I hear of the sacrifice it's always referred to in respect to the cross, crucifixion, trial.

If this is your own personal interpretation, then I don't expect you to answer on behalf of common Christian churches.

I still have philosophical disagreement with you calling this a "sacrifice", but I think your answer is better than the typical "he died on the cross for us!" answer.

Yes indeed Jesus gave up a greater thing to assume the position of a lesser thing and to go through the troubles of a lesser thing.

But I thought He loved us? Don't most creatures enjoy being with the things they love? (Of course this can be answered simply as God works in mysterious ways, but I still think that's a lazy answer.) So yeah he had to go through a short time of pain and ridicule, but he had 35 years of hanging out with his best friends and then after the death promptly returned to bliss and goodness. Again... doesn't really seem to match the description of a sacrifice. As I recall, 35 years to God would feel like mere seconds to us. So, basically, he went through seconds of not-perfect-but-still-with-your-dearest-loved-ones amongst a sea of eternity living in absolute bliss. Again, I'm not quite sure what the sacrifice is.

 

[Adstar]

You didn't give an explanation, you just stated opposition. You said "people will be sad and they will mourn" but you didn't answer my question of what is the cause of the sadness. I've given two possibilities: (i) selfishness (longing) (ii) self-doubt in their own faith and considering the possibility that maybe there is no God, no heaven, etc. and their child has simply died. What is curious to me about this is that the obvious answer seems to be (ii), whereas if there was no self-doubt, selfishness seems kind of petty. Moreover, I don't think (ii) is a threat to religion in any way. To paraphrase my old rabbi friend "how could I possibly know such a thing for certain? I'm not a prophet."

I did give an explaination you said "(i) selfishness (longing) (ii) self-doubt in their own faith " and I said (iii) Missing the company of a loved one and facing the prospect of missing them for the rest of their natural lives.
Maybe the problem is that you do not love anyone and therefore have no empathy, and thats why you cannot see the answer as an answer? Are you a clinical psycopath?

It's just something peculiar to Christianity from my perspective. Self-doubt in faith is an entirely natural and expected aspect of Jewish life -

Self doubt is a natural part of my life also and I am a Christian. But i have no doubts in The God of Abraham.

though laws are to be followed at all time. Maimonides himself had such doubts. It's just strange to me that I've never met a Christian who would say "yes, faced with death itself (or the death of a loved one) I had doubt that my convictions were true."

Don't mix up doubt in onself to doubting God. I guess if one believes their eternity with God depended on their ability to follow the Laws of the Torah then yes no doubt maimonides would have had doubts about his place in eternity. But having doubts in onself is not the same as having doubts in God.

You acknowledge that man is imperfect.

Yep.

God gave you a brain, presumably with his encouragement to use it. All rationality indicates there is no particular reason one religion may be more true than another.

If God has a will and He has seen to it that that will has been given, then the religion that gives that will in it's completed form is the 1 and only correct religion in existance.

You have faith, belief. That's fine. I understand that religion requires one leap of faith before someone can return to rational thinking, and I'm not going to judge anyone on that here. But having made that leap of faith, I would imagine God himself would be surprised if there were no moments of doubt. Didn't Christ - who is Lord - have doubt? If Christ himself can have doubt, why does it seem so hard for mortals to admit?

I don't get it? Your almost pleading with me to have doubts in God. Through Jesus i can make a division between the doubts i have in myself and my views on God. So No, i do not have any doubts in God and in the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. I do not have to admit anything i do not suffer from.

So then the sacrifice God made was in the act of coming down to earth? Rather than in the act of the crucifixion? I think this is a more reasonable answer.

Did i say that? Why move the goal posts? Want to get me to deny the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross was a sacrifice? Give up now. Just because i reveal an answer that shoots your hypothesis down don't try then to shoot my faith down. It is imposable.

But then it begs the question; what's with the passion plays and the constant reminder that Christ sacrificed his body and "life" for humanity? If you're saying God's leaving the bliss of Heaven and purity to come down to this craphole was his sacrifice, I'm left unsure of why every time I hear of the sacrifice it's always referred to in respect to the cross, crucifixion, trial.

HA HA HA I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Jesus atoning sacrifice was His death upon the Cross.

If this is your own personal interpretation, then I don't expect you to answer on behalf of common Christian churches.

What do i care for the common christian churches. I do not answer for any "church" I answer for the Word of God.

I still have philosophical disagreement with you calling this a "sacrifice", but I think your answer is better than the typical "he died on the cross for us!" answer.

But indeed that is the sacrifice that's acceptance brings one eternal life. My answer only adds icing to the cake.

But I thought He loved us? Don't most creatures enjoy being with the things they love? (Of course this can be answered simply as God works in mysterious ways, but I still think that's a lazy answer.) So yeah he had to go through a short time of pain and ridicule, but he had 35 years of hanging out with his best friends and then after the death promptly returned to bliss and goodness. Again... doesn't really seem to match the description of a sacrifice. As I recall, 35 years to God would feel like mere seconds to us. So, basically, he went through seconds of not-perfect-but-still-with-your-dearest-loved-ones amongst a sea of eternity living in absolute bliss. Again, I'm not quite sure what the sacrifice is.

Don't you know the very basics of Christian belief????

Don't you know that Jesus is with us and has never left us. What limited human thinking your head is filled with. 35 years LOL And people like you think that they are among the philosophical elite of the world. Amazing.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[swarm]

Being "a good Christian", in one interpretation of the Bible, seems to only require accepting that Christ died for your sins. Nothing more, really.

True, being a christian is totally meaningless.

Its a shame the insanity of it still plagues us.

 

[Tyler]

Maybe the problem is that you do not love anyone and therefore have no empathy, and thats why you cannot see the answer as an answer? Are you a clinical psycopath?

If my mother went far away to a land of bliss and happiness and total perfection and joy, and I knew I would join her there for all eternity in a mere 40+ years, I would not be sad. I would be happy for her, happy for my future and excited to see her again sometime later and then for all time following.

And as for insinuating I have mental problems, something tells me that's not the way Christ preached. Nor is it a way to win converts. If I, a damned atheist, can withhold insults and insinuations, I like to think a Christian with the power of Christ in his heart should probably be able to act at least as mature.

Don't mix up doubt in onself to doubting God. I guess if one believes their eternity with God depended on their ability to follow the Laws of the Torah then yes no doubt maimonides would have had doubts about his place in eternity. But having doubts in onself is not the same as having doubts in God.

You hold a differing view from the Rabbis I've spoken to and read from. I've yet to hear any Jew proclaim there is absolutely 100% a god and they've never doubted that from day one. Again, as the Rabbi said, "I'm not a prophet, I don't have access to that sort of certainty."

If God has a will and He has seen to it that that will has been given, then the religion that gives that will in it's completed form is the 1 and only correct religion in existance.

And yet as God is a perfect being his will and actions are not fully comprehensible to you (or any other mortal). And so you, as an imperfect being, could quite possible make a mistake in understanding which religion most accurately presents his will.

To say otherwise is to suggest that you are not capable of error.

Jesus atoning sacrifice was His death upon the Cross.

Right. But as I said, that's not really a sacrifice. The steps of our discussion have been:
Tyler: Giving up a sinful place (earth) for a sinless place (heaven) is not a sacrifice.
You: So the Word took on Flesh and became man, left a State of Perfect Bliss to come down to this shitty, dirty, painful and violent world to be mocked and rejected and to suffer a prolonged and violent death to save sinners.
Tyler: So then his sacrifice was to come down among us thereby leaving a perfect place?
You: No, it was the crucifixion.

In which case you still haven't answered the question. Honestly, I liked your initial statement more. In coming down to Earth and taking flesh, God gave up perfection for a sinful place of residence. That - however meekly - does fit the definition of a sacrifice insofar as it is giving up something great for something lesser (though the great thing was returned in full not long after).

So, now we're back to Christ dying (giving up sin in exchange for perfection) was a sacrifice. And again, I'm still not sure what your answer to this is. Every time I ask you just repeat the exact same sentence "he died!" Well, yeah... But dying in and of itself is not a sacrifice if you promptly go to heaven afterward.

Don't you know that Jesus is with us and has never left us.

Jesus as flesh and man? No, I'm pretty sure he's not. That God is in everything certainly fits with Christian theology, but you still haven't shown how that is a sacrifice of any sort.

And people like you think that they are among the philosophical elite of the world. Amazing.

I never said that. You assumed it with no reason. You're arrogant, condescending and proud.

I doubt Christ would be very impressed with that.

 

[John99]

You hold a differing view from the Rabbis I've spoken to and read from. I've yet to hear any Jew proclaim there is absolutely 100% a god and they've never doubted that from day one.

I know quite a few Rabbi's who would disagree with that statement.

 

[Tyler]

I know quite a few Rabbi's who would disagree with that statement.

Coincidentally I was just reading an article by one...

"Of what value is faith if you know that all will be well?" I asked him. "Does it take wisdom and strength to make an investment if you know the stock will go up?" (Okay, admittedly a bad example for these times, but you know what I mean.) "Is it a challenge to love G‑d and have faith in Him when your job is secure and the bills are all paid and there is money in the account?

"The definition of the word faith," I continued, "is 'trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.' If we had proof that it was all going to work out, well then we'd all be part of the easygoing faithful!

...it is worth noting that while we Chabad guys are wonderful – in my estimation, at least... – and we preach and inspire and mean every single word of it, we are human too and we have the same struggles and fears as everyone else does.

We put on a stiff upper lip perhaps because we do have it engrained in our psyche – as students of the Rebbe, Chabad philosophy and chassidic teachings – that perhaps the best way to deal with the fear of that which we cannot control is to control the things that we can. That is to do what is right, to help another Jew, to not feel bad or down but to be proactive and productive.

- http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/825495/jewish/Confessions-of-a-Chabad-Rabbi.htm

I'll find some more good sources on it later if you'd like. This one is more about keeping faith in hard times, but I've read some specific articles about the question of total certainty.

 

[John99]

This one is more about keeping faith in hard times, but I've read some specific articles about the question of total certainty.

Most likely Reform Judaism. Conservative branches are less inclined to question total certainty, if they would at all. Then again it seems normal to have some doubts at times.

 

[Adstar]

If my mother went far away to a land of bliss and happiness and total perfection and joy, and I knew I would join her there for all eternity in a mere 40+ years, I would not be sad. I would be happy for her, happy for my future and excited to see her again sometime later and then for all time following.

And as for insinuating I have mental problems, something tells me that's not the way Christ preached. Nor is it a way to win converts.

I asked a question to prompt self-examination on your part. A lot of people who are clinical psychopaths and therefore have no empathy just do not understand things like mourning. Most don't realise their own condition.

Secondly Jesus was very blunt and direct when it was called for.


Matthew 23
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

And i will not go into the incident when we went at some in the temple with a whip. I guess your got a view of Jesus from some "religious" person not from the Gospels themselves.

As for wining converts it's between the Holy Spirit and You. Personally i think your doomed. Your a bit to pompous and proud to take on meekness, But if anyone can humble you then God can do it. Question is does He want to?

“ God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”

You hold a differing view from the Rabbis I've spoken to and read from. I've yet to hear any Jew proclaim there is absolutely 100% a god and they've never doubted that from day one. Again, as the Rabbi said, "I'm not a prophet, I don't have access to that sort of certainty."

Then the rabbies you are talking and reading are worthless. Because without belief no one can have any chance of being with God.

Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And yet as God is a perfect being his will and actions are not fully comprehensible to you (or any other mortal). And so you, as an imperfect being, could quite possible make a mistake in understanding which religion most accurately presents his will.

To say otherwise is to suggest that you are not capable of error.

Never said He was fully comprehensible to me did i. Your coming from the point that God must be found by diligent searching, by ones own efforts. Nope because no one can. Therefore God is the One who reveals Himself, who gives wisdom and understanding in a portion He deems necessary for the seeker. That never totals up to a comprehensive view because that view would do away with the need for faith/trust. An important element that needs to be maintained.

Right. But as I said, that's not really a sacrifice. The steps of our discussion have been:
Tyler: Giving up a sinful place (earth) for a sinless place (heaven) is not a sacrifice.
You: So the Word took on Flesh and became man, left a State of Perfect Bliss to come down to this shitty, dirty, painful and violent world to be mocked and rejected and to suffer a prolonged and violent death to save sinners.
Tyler: So then his sacrifice was to come down among us thereby leaving a perfect place?
You: No, it was the crucifixion.

In which case you still haven't answered the question.

What Question. Oh yeah you pose it as a question. But i know your intention is to put forward your view. That there is no sacrafice in what Jesus went through. You have willfully resisted the wisdom given. You question has been answered But you never wanted an answer did you, gets in the way of your own pridfull and pompus conclusions hey.

So, now we're back to Christ dying (giving up sin in exchange for perfection) was a sacrifice.

What do you mean here? Jesus never gave up sin in exchange for perfection. Jesus did not sin. He was and is perfect. Where did you get this twisted notion that He gave up sin for perfection.

And again, I'm still not sure what your answer to this is. Every time I ask you just repeat the exact same sentence "he died!" Well, yeah... But dying in and of itself is not a sacrifice if you promptly go to heaven afterward.

Well if the answer is not good enough for you sunshine then thats your tradgedy. Eternal tradgedy.

Jesus as flesh and man? No, I'm pretty sure he's not. That God is in everything certainly fits with Christian theology, but you still haven't shown how that is a sacrifice of any sort.

"Jesus as flesh and man?" Clutching at straws are we? have any of your rabbies ever mentioned that God is Spirit. Or have they moved so far away from Torah that they are denying that too now?

I never said that. You assumed it with no reason. You're arrogant, condescending and proud.

I doubt Christ would be very impressed with that.

Says the one who does not know The Messiah Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps a Moslem could enlighten me on this second question; why Christians are so hard to talk to.
So, again, where does Islam sit on this line?

Muslims have no problem with theological discussions. Like Jews, we believe that no one can know everything and any discussion is permitted so long as it is gentle and has no aim of denigrating the other's beliefs. Unlike Jews, we begin from a position of faith, with a belief in the presence of God.

And yes, Christians are hard to talk to and while Hinduism, Buddhism and even Judaism is comprehensible, Christianity is incomprehensible.

"Muslims thought of choosing a small team of 4-5 people, leading Islamic thinkers, to be able to have a dialogue on the deepest theological issues with the Vatican, including the pope himself," in the wake of controversies over Regensburg, Hossein said. "At least, that's the condition I put down. Nothing came of that, there was no response from the Vatican."

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4345

 

[(Q)]

Muslims have no problem with theological discussions. Like Jews, we believe that no one can know everything and any discussion is permitted so long as it is gentle and has no aim of denigrating the other's beliefs.

Then, it isn't really a discussion, it's a reaffirmation congregation.

And yes, Christians are hard to talk to and while Hinduism, Buddhism and even Judaism is comprehensible, Christianity is incomprehensible.

Come now. Tell us what you really think about other religions, Sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then, it isn't really a discussion, it's a reaffirmation congregation.

No its a discussion. You've probably never attended one. You should.

Come now. Tell us what you really think about other religions, Sam.

I have no problem with anyone following their beliefs. But I can be a bitch with the best of them.

Thats a personal failure, it has nothing to do with Islam

 

[Tyler]

As for wining converts it's between the Holy Spirit and You. Personally i think your doomed. Your a bit to pompous and proud to take on meekness, But if anyone can humble you then God can do it. Question is does He want to?

Why would he not want to? Isn't He just and righteous? Wouldn't he want everyone to be just and righteous along with him? I'm not insinuating that there isn't still my own personal choice involved, I'm just confused as to why God could possibly not want me to be good.

Then the rabbies you are talking and reading are worthless. Because without belief no one can have any chance of being with God.

Belief is not the same as certainty.

Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Right. Not "But without 100% blind certainty and an entire lifetime without doubt it is impossible to please Him..."

Never said He was fully comprehensible to me did i. Your coming from the point that God must be found by diligent searching, by ones own efforts. Nope because no one can. Therefore God is the One who reveals Himself, who gives wisdom and understanding in a portion He deems necessary for the seeker. That never totals up to a comprehensive view because that view would do away with the need for faith/trust. An important element that needs to be maintained.

No, I'm not confused at all. And I am not insinuating that one needs to seek for God rather than let Him come to you.

You're imperfect. And as such an imperfect vessel to receive His message. And so you could misunderstand it.

This is just a simple point. Either you (a) are incapable of mistake or (b) are capable of mistake. Assuming you're not God, I would guess you would agree that you are (b). And as someone capable of mistake, then you are capable of misunderstanding God's message. Certainly enough people greater and weaker than yourself have done so over the grand length of human history.

What Question. Oh yeah you pose it as a question. But i know your intention is to put forward your view. That there is no sacrafice in what Jesus went through. You have willfully resisted the wisdom given. You question has been answered But you never wanted an answer did you, gets in the way of your own pridfull and pompus conclusions hey.

Your making more assumptions. I really can't recall a part of the Bible where Christ says "and thou shalt assume things about other human beings without knowing them at all... you shall never treat people with an open mind, rather always assuming the worst about them because of your previous experience with others."

I've been given two answers by you. One of them was way more satisfying than the one I typically get and I acknowledged that fully. If nothing else, that should make it clear to you that my intention is not to attack, just to ask.

What do you mean here? Jesus never gave up sin in exchange for perfection. Jesus did not sin. He was and is perfect. Where did you get this twisted notion that He gave up sin for perfection.

My meaning was he gave up a perfect world for a sinful world. It was your wording I took that from: So the Word took on Flesh and became man, left a State of Perfect Bliss to come down to this shitty, dirty, painful and violent world to be mocked and rejected and to suffer a prolonged and violent death to save sinners.

The Lord left a state of perfect bliss (which I shortened to "perfection") and came down to a shitty, dirty, painful and violent world (which I shortened to "sin"). Pretty simple.

Says the one who does not know The Messiah Jesus.

Does Jesus encourage Christians to assume knowledge about men without knowing them, to insult them and to be condescending and proud?

This is an honest question. I promise you no sarcasm. Christ may well have told you to insult non-believers, be condescending to them and to act proud (though I seem to remember pride being a sin). I don't know and I'm honestly asking you if you do know.

Muslims have no problem with theological discussions. Like Jews, we believe that no one can know everything and any discussion is permitted so long as it is gentle and has no aim of denigrating the other's beliefs. Unlike Jews, we begin from a position of faith, with a belief in the presence of God.

I think a lot of Jews - Chabad, for one - will begin in the exact same position. But there is a qualitative difference in that most theological arguments are highly legalistic in their nature.

 

[Adstar]

This is an honest question. I promise you no sarcasm. Christ may well have told you to insult non-believers, be condescending to them and to act proud (though I seem to remember pride being a sin). I don't know and I'm honestly asking you if you do know.

When i first engage in discussion with a person about God i do all i can to be gentle and do my best just to give an answer to their questions and points. That’s the best way and the way the Messiah wants it to be done. But your not in that phase are you, And this is not your first thread is it.

2 Timothy 2
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

But there comes a time when the other person shows themselves as being in determined opposition. Then the only purpose that is served by continuing discussion with them is with an eye to an onlooker who might be listening in and might not be hardened to the truth. Of course there is always a thought in the back of my mind that maybe, just maybe, the Spirit is still working on the recalcitrant and maybe if i push a bit of conviction it might cause them to stand back and assess themselves. But then again maybe that is just my unwise response to someone who is rejecting their eternal life.

Having read the above scripture 2 Timothy 2 myself i can now see that making such efforts discussing if Jesus dieing on the cross was a sacrifice or not is well within the bounds of "foolish and ignorant disputes"

So a lot of conflicting emotions and reasoning here within me. I think i should let you go for now and leave you to the will of God.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Tyler]

This is not the original intention of the thread, but it's interesting enough and I'll follow up...

But your not in that phase are you, And this is not your first thread is it.

I should think given the scripture you quoted that how many threads I've posted is irrelevant. Moreover, if you want to take the time to search through Religion threads (I wouldn't bother if I were you) it's been an awfully long time since I've been starting threads. Maybe five or six years.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not in that phase". I'm always - and hopefully always will be - in the phase of questioning and trying to learn more.

But there comes a time when the other person shows themselves as being in determined opposition.

Aye. And on this question I'm in rather determined opposition. But I'd like to add that 'determined opposition' can quickly become 'total agreement' as soon as I'm shown evidence against my position. I shouldn't think that conviction ought to dissuade one from argument. Blind faith, on the other hand...

Having read the above scripture 2 Timothy 2 myself i can now see that making such efforts discussing if Jesus dieing on the cross was a sacrifice or not is well within the bounds of "foolish and ignorant disputes"

I strongly disagree. I understand - to some degree - that you do not identify with some leading church and do not wish to act as their representative. Fair enough. My question of sacrifice (or the importance of this supposed 'sacrifice') is one aimed at Church Theology rather than at the Bible itself. I hoped to make that clear in this thread and made it clear in the title as well. The question was never one trying to undermine Christianity itself, but rather an attempt to find the logic in the Church and conventional wisdom's understanding.

As such, to treat it as a foolish or unhelpful question seems counter-productive. Any church's primary objective, I should think, is to best act in the will of God. Many schisms in church history have been caused by differing groups interpreting the importance or necessity of certain aspects of the main church in contradictory ways. These schisms undoubtedly lead to profound changes in Christian theology and thus philosophy and social order.

Frankly, I think a Christianity that focused less on the tales of the Passion and the overriding theme of Christ's sacrifice and pain would be a significantly better representation of the actual philosophy he espoused. I wouldn't consider my opinion to be an attack on Christ, though possibly one on some church theology.

To imply that this is necessarily an attack on Christ himself is ludicrous, and reminiscent of Chinese government posturing. If person X supports human rights groups and laws, then person X is attacking policy of the Communist party. As Communist party policy is completely and only the policy of advancing and supporting the Chinese people, then person X is attacking the Chinese people and an enemy of the state. It's this sort of transitive insanity that leads to such statements as "Lawyer Y, who attempted to defend farmer Z in a court of law, was promoting bourgeois notions of human rights, and is therefore an enemy of the Communist Party and therefore an enemy of the people."

Not much different from "he's attacking Church theology, therefore he is attacking Christ." To me, that argument doesn't hold water. It's a scare tactic.