People today have no concept of it, if we ever did. God does not forget. He does not ignore. And he never fails to notice. You can’t slip one by him. He can’t be bargained with, he can’t be reasoned with, and he absolutely will not stop until you are Saved.
I don’t think most people here understand what exactly humanity is about in Christian theology. We’re not just “naturally fallible.” We are the rebels, the allies of Satan. We are Peter denying Jesus. We are Vichy France, going along with the enemy. We are the criminals and the murderers. Not “them,” us. Every one of us is so horrendously evil that justice demands punishment beyond our capacity to comprehend and atonement beyond our capacity to perform. Fortunately, God does not give up, easily and possibly at all. If he does not forget, neither does he fail to forgive. And even if he forgives, we must repent.
It wasn’t death as a payment that God was so much after, it was that Jesus was the physical manifestation of God’s power over sin and death (the resurrection).
Hmmm, so god had to sacrifice himself to himself, to allow himself to break a rule that he made himself.
To elaborate:
god made a rule: the wages of sin is death. (death being defined here as eternal punishment in hell.)
god decided he wanted to break the rule and allow sinners into heaven anyway.
god makes another rule: if he comes to earth and gets killed, and a sinner believes that he did and “asks him into their heart,” whatever that means, they get to break the first rule and enter heaven.
The whole idea that god is bound by his own rules is ridiculous. Obviously if he doesn’t like a rule he can change it as evidenced by the OT vs. NT god. God coming up with a complicated new rule to contravene a previous rule makes no sense, he can do whatever he wants. Saying “god can’t allow sin to enter heaven” is ridiculous- who says he can’t? It’s his house. Any explanation of salvation requires one to believe both that god is obligated to follow certain rules and simultaneously believe that he can break rules whenever he wants.
So exactly how is justice serverd more by sinners getting off the hook from someone being inconvenienced for 3 days 2000 years ago versus honestly asking repentence, and perhaps giving something up as payment? If I commit murder, and you get the chair, I don’t see justice as being done.
And don’t tell me how absolutely dreadful Jesus had it. If the story was true, he was up on the cross just briefly compared to other criminals, let alone what Christians have done to others throughout the years. Perhaps he was just too sensitive - the same mindset that makes some people think that white collar criminals suffer more in country club prisons than prisoners of a lower sort do on chain gangs.
There is a different between a rule and Law. God is the Divine Law. His own nature demands absolute justice just as much as it does love and mercy. Without justice, there is no good. He will no more satisfy himself with a limited concept of good, however convenient, than you would be with a single asparagus stalk, even if it meant you could avoid a long trip to the supermarket. You’re going to want to eat a meal sooner or later.
God is not just good in himself. He is all good, everywhere. Nothing good can come except from him, and nothing good exists wholly apart from him.
Both a crime and a debt, remember. I believe I already mentioned that.
Did God make that rule, or is it a logical necessaity, part of the structure of the universe? Kind of like, “If you act like a jerk, people will dislike you”—it’s hard to imagine a world in which it were otherwise.
He either made it, or it is the result of something he has done indirectly that he chooses not to change. It may be hard for you to imagine such a world, but if God is indeed godly, he can make it.
I’ve never been satisfied by the “Jesus’s death as a payback for sin” argument, myself. It seems like the kind of concept that would only make sense to a culture that practices sacrifice. Anyone outside of that culture will inherently have a difficult time appreciating the significance of it all on an emotional level. Blood sacrifices as way of balancing the scales of justices is as foreign to me as the stoning of a woman that was raped, for the same reason.
I prefer to see Jesus’s death as a necessary set-up for his final miracle: Resurrection. Jesus used miracles as a adjunct to his teachings, to get people to pay attention to him. What better way to get the whole world’s attention by defeating death after being murdered? Jesus would not have gained the legendary status he had if he hadn’t first been martyred and then rose from the dead victorious. Thus, his death served as a necessary catalyst for the Christianity movement.
Odd, isn’t it, how theists when confronted with contradictions tell us how we can’t understand god, while at the same time telling us exactly what does and does not satisfy god. If God made us flawed, how come he can’t accept someone’s striving against our flaws. If a gym teacher cuts someone’s legs off, he shouldn’t give them an F for not finishing the mile in the alloted time. (Weird analogy of the day, I know.)
The sacrifice of Jesus was no sacrifice at all. God didn’t lose anything. He didn’t even learn anything - an omniscient deity knows what pain feels like, by definition. There was not even any suspense. If we can get salvation through Jesus, we can get salvation directly from God without going through Jesus. (If salvation is even necessary.) I give up more pulling a gray hair out than God did.
The root cause of this is perfectly obvious. Confronted with the embarassing situation where their Messiah screwed up and died instead of becoming King and leading Israel, the Christians had to come up with an explanation. Adopting the sacrifice theme did nicely. The exclusivity thing was a great differentiator - who cares what god or gods you believe in, or even if you believe in the same god we do - accept Jesus or God will have to fry you. Exactly your argument, isn’t it?
If God is so inscrutable, then how do you know it is right to worship Him? He could be yanking our collective chains in an effort to acquire souls which He then feeds to his infernal Hellhounds for all you know.
I don’t buy the “God works in mysterious ways” claim. After all, he’s pretty much spelled out the End of Days already (assuming John’s revelation is to be believed…), so it’s not like there’s some big surprise waiting at the end of the road. God is either knowable, or He is not. If He is not, then I cannot be certain that he is worthy of worship, completely apart from the possibility of His existence. If He is, then I can question His motivations and rationales just as I can any other entity’s.
And, if part of that questioning leads me to ask, “well, why the hell couldn’t God have simply forgiven and forgotten (recall that Jesus is the one who brought up the whole “turn the other cheek” thing…) and done away with all the convoluted sacrifices and such for salvation?”, then I think the answer deserves more than a casual dismissal on the basis of some alleged mysteriousness.
Oh, I completely agree. It’s just that this whole question reminds me of the beginning of Chapter Four of Twain’s A Double Barrelled Detective Story.
After this was published, Twain received countless letters, many from Professors of English, who, while praising the passage generally, were puzzled by the reference to the “lonely esophagus.” “What does this mean”, they asked.
The joke, of course, is that the entire paragraph is nonsense. I merely question why the OP demands logic in a context where logic is meaningless. He passes a camel and strains at a gnat, as it were. Salvation doesn’t make sense, but the rest of it does? What has religion to do with making sense?
Exactly. Justice isn’t about making sure people get punished in some way. It’s about treating people appropriately. People who do good things get good, bad things, bad, and everyone is treated as an individual. Dishing out the same old punishments to everyone is no more justice than punishing no one would be.
The Christian model makes no sense if one looks at the result of the salvation plan: sinners saved from justice, now living in eternal reward.
If that’s the plan, why not start there if you are an omnipotent God? In heaven, beings will not be able to sin and separate themselves from God. Therefore it makes no sense to every create anything that doesn’t begin with heaven. Just start w/ heaven, for God’s sake…um, for the Lost’s sake.
One can promote all the arguments you want around the need for free will, the opportunity to choose, etc etc. But there is no free will in heaven–at least not the free will to reject God, so there is no argument that can be made around the necessity of Free Will. Create the heavenly category of beings to start with, and you’ve got a Plan that makes sense. Sort of.
highlighting mine. The bible indicates the opposite of this; that, in fact, all sentient beings—angels included----have the power to choose their course. The texts indicate that many angels did reject God to pursue a self-willed, self directed, course. (and it’s consequence) Your comment can’t be proven,(either way, actually) but at the very least is in conflict with the bible record.
So there is no eternal salvation? In heaven the beings who were once humans can reject God the way they did on earth? I understand the Bible teaches that created earthly and heavenly beings have free will to reject God–after all, Satan was once a glorious being in standard theology.
However, once the timeline of the Judgment is past (in all standard Christian variants of which I am aware) there will be no more sin and no more pain for the Saved. It must follow that they are changed in a fundamental way that takes away whatever it is that allowed them to fall away from God in the first place. In standard theology what caused them to fall out of grance and require salvation is the execution of their Free Will to sin/reject God/however you want to put it.
My point is: Start with those kind of beings if you are Omnipotent. It’s pointless and painful to create a different sort of creation that requires so much suffering to get to an endgame where the beings can’t sin anymore and don’t need further saving.
Now if you are saying we can reject God and get the boot out of heaven–if you are saying salvation is not eternal–I would disagree that that is standard Biblical teaching.
