Christianity and Love

Awwww, I like the KJV version better: “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” It sounds like God’s mooning him. :wink:

I still don’t think you’ve explained how this is just. We don’t consider it just for a judge to take a murderer’s punishment upon himself. Punishment for sins or crimes is not some thing can floats around that can be accepted by anyone; to be justice, the deserving person must be punished. If you are going to be merciful and not punish the deserving one, it does not simply become just because you punish someone else; in fact, it becomes less just. To punish one for the crimes of another does not fulfill the demands of justice.

Well, that doesn’t cover the deaths of who knows how many innocent sheep before Jesus came along. Why must they die for our sins?

I think you’ve skipped my original question with all the stuff about how sin can come into the presence of God; you tell my that the Bible says that is how God decided to set it up, but I’m not asking that…I’m wondering “why did God set it up so that innocent blood was required before sins were forgiven/covered?” It doesn’t seem like a Good choice, when He knows how many innocents must die if He arranges things this way. And no, “because He is Holy” does not answer this. Why create a world where the guilty can only escape punishment by killing the innocent? If you wish to save the guilty, just do so, don’t kill the innocent!

And you better answer tracer, I think he’s asked the same thing three times now… :wink:

I hope you don’t mind me bopping in for a second to play a bit of Devil’s Advocate. Muuuuahahahaha,…ehem, sorry got a bit carried away there.

Anyway, from Guadere:

quote:


I see these comments coming up a lot from the (for lack of a better term) anti-Christian side. God makes, the rules, God can do anything he wants, he's god, etc. Well I wonder if that might be specifically true. For example, the choices we make today limit the choices we can make tomorrow, we can not go back and undo yesterday. Perhaps in setting up the world the way it is...physical laws, nature of man, all of that good stuff. Now we always think of "god" as being perfect, but mabey he aint. Hell read the new testament, seems to me like he was flubbing around with creation with almost as much success as I had the first time I tried to keep tropical fish (may heaven bring joy to their little hearts). Anyway, so lets say he flubs a couple of key decisions, gets into a fight with his main man Satan, the big S-dude slips a little Evil into men's (and women's) hearts. Dang, what's God gonna do now? MAbey he can send his only begotten son, blah blah blah, to get us poor saps off the hook (God's equivalent of Ick-B-Gone). Anyway, perhaps God is desperately trying to fix old mistakes (hey it was his first time out of diety school). Or mabey he just said "%&$%* the whole thing, it's time I took a vacation" and left us alone to sort things out (sorry went Deist there for a second). At any rate, perhaps God is limited in his options, and hoping us little fish will somehow be able to help ourselves at least half way. If that were true, he would be upset if we go to Hell (dang I was sad when the fish went belly-up :( ) and it wouldn't exactly be his choice.

I am not sure if the Christians are gonna exactly embrase my "Inept God" hypothesis, but just wanted to stir the pot a bit.

So God thinks we’re all perfect, wonderful beings, until we commit the least little offense. Then he thinks we deserve eternal torment in a lake of fire. That is one raging case of Borderline Personality Disorder, if you ask me.

Of course, this is on top of the obvious Narcissistic tendencies. You could use the Old Testament to make a good case for Antisocial.

I’d hate to be God’s shrink.

Dr. J

DrJ:

I would have given God a diagnosis of Self-Defeating PErsonality Disorder myself (for putting his coins on betting we’d be perfect). Sadly they yanked that diagnosis from DSM-IV. T. Millon will still let you use it though (and he is the guru of PDs)

First of all, y’all are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic.

Secondly, all you non-Jeezers out there, do you enjoying banging your head against a wall because it feels good when you stop? :rolleyes: C’mon! Pigs can’t sing! Knock it off! :slight_smile:

Thirdly, I ain’t reading through all this schlock. Somebody let me know if I missed anything on-topic.

I will say, though, I’m glad I caught this gem from tracer:

That sounds like a .sig line, m’boy. :smiley:

I will address an OT question directed to me from FriendofGod way back when:

How wonderful for you. I, however, (well, at least for the sake of argument) love Dr. Boyfriend more than just a “buddy” or a “pal” or a “brother” - I love him. Romantically. Heart and soul. Lifelong commitment. The whole burrito. O happy day. How sad that your god considers this a Bad Thing™.

Thank you for making my case for me. Sure, they went for a time without sex and waited until marriage. I’m happy for them. But you said it yourself - they did have sex. So why am I not allowed to? This is one of the many reasons I’m not Christian.

But of course Christianity denies same-sex couples the opportunity to get married - nice little catch-22 to prevent us from having any meaningful relationships. :rolleyes:

Then please, O Christian One, give me your advice on how Dr. Boyfriend and I should conduct ourselves in our relationship. Deny our love? Go off and enter into shallow, meaningless shells of marriages with women we neither love, are attracted to or wish to be married to? Celibacy? Engage in much hugging and hand-holding? Become priests? Check into a mental hospital? Is Jesus going to cure my homosexuality?

But all sin is equal, n’est-ce pas?

You didn’t know this? :confused: Jeez, I really need to be more open about my sexuality on this board… :rolleyes:

Esprix

Esprix wrote:

“The whole burrito”?

Now now, there’s no need to describe his anatomy in this fashion. :wink:

The prophet of God’s Sublime Glurftiness, Tracer, spake and said:

Okay. I have no argument with your last sentence. And it’s a singularly worthwhile question.

My answer would be that, for God only knows what reason (no blasphemy intended; I mean it literally), He holds the idea of allowing us free will as something very precious. I don’t remember whether it was a previous run of posts on this board or elsewhere, but I remember being struck by a line of argument that suggested that you would find being loved by someone who chose to love you much more “real love” than being loved by someone who was compelled to. God is so chary of our free will and of not dominating it by His Divine Presence that He will for the most part do nothing to prove Himself unambiguously to the satisfaction of a thoroughgoing skeptic. (That is not to set skeptics to one side as “a group to whom God will not prove himself” – it’s saying that he will not give a proof that will stand up under skepticism. Thus it becomes your choice to believe in Him or not. To use one of Gaudere’s favorite metaphors, I can choose to accept or reject the hypothetical existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn; I am forced to believe in the existence of the Mississippi River. And when you get to the question of whether to believe in the existence of Someone Who, if He truly exists, must be treated as Lord God Almighty, there is a case for ambiguity being a mercy of non-compulsion.

As we have argued in innumerable threads here, there is plenty of evidence for His intervention in human affairs. And all of it is subject to possible explanation away as urban (or rural) legend, myth, folklore, etc. This allows those who are not willing to accept His existence – and therefore His Lordship – to discount Him as some sort of lore. And it’s painfully obvious that human nature is prone to explaining away any presently inexplicable event as something supernatural. The actual appearance of a real God on Earth could easily be seen as one more of these superstitious stories.

Instead, He works through those who are willing to listen, and through and despite their faults. (And I am certain that Friend of God, if he/she does not feel threatened by unbelievers picking up on every flaw in his/her posts, would be quite willing to admit having numerous faults. All of which God has forgiven.)

Now, let me revert to my previous point. It is not for any one of us to identify what is “sin” in God’s eyes as regards another human being. You can direct helpful suggestions in their direction as to what they might consider as possible sins in themselves. (I do need someone to help wash my back; I can’t see it.) But this must be in caritas, done very sensitively and with evident love present. Therefore it is not for any one of us to suggest that FoG is being hypocritical – by his/her lights he/she is not. And it is not for anyone of us to suggest that Esprix is sinning – by his lights, he is not. As God said to Job [slightly paraphrased], “Where were you when I created the Heavens and the Earth? Are you privy to My plan for the Universe?”

For reasons known best to Him, God has seen fit to allow about 10% of humanity to be born (or inculcated in early life, if you buy that argument) with exclusively same-sex desire. It is, as has been said about 5,000 times on various threads, not a choice. Whether they act on their desires is a choice. But is it therefore sinful? Be very cautious before you drag out any Biblical quote; some of them are very poor translations. I could go so far as to suggest that, while promiscuous partying is likely sinful, a committed relationship is not. And that goes for both gays and straights.

Ex gay ministries? I know that’s going to come up. At rock bottom, what appears to be the case is that they do not “straighten out” true homosexuals; if they do anything, they inculcate repression and a sense of guilt. The few “success stories” – and there are some – appear to be from people of bisexual orientation who got the idea in their teens, “I get horny around Bobby; I must be queer” when they got equally horny, or more so, around Jennifer and Mary Beth – and who have successfully suppressed their homosexual desires while giving vent to their heterosexual ones, which are, of course, “only what any red-blooded American boy ought to feel” – and never mind that, out of a loving-and-committed relationship, they are equally sinful, if sin it is. (I have not yet gotten a straight answer from God on why He created us with always-on sexuality instead of estrus, but I suspect strongly He had His reasons, and they have a lot to do with the idea that most “higher” traits build on “animal” ones, and He is a God of love.)

Now, take it from there.

Lawdy how we’ve missed you Polycarp. :smiley:

Ex-gay ministries were discussed in my “‘20/20’ & Ex-Gays” thread, if anyone wants to take a peek.

Esprix

Keep in mind, Poly, that your explantion only works if you do not think non-believers go to Hell; otherwise it is like discreetly hinting to someone that they are about to drive off a cliff.

Goodness, and here my Mother forced me to believe in her and love her by actually physically manifesting, acting as if she loved me, and telling me so. :wink: And one might think that people are forced to believe in the moon landings, or evolution, but they manifestly are not, despite the scads of evidence–it makes it harder for the disbliever, but by no means is their belief forced. Giving a great deal of evidence for belief does not force belief, and I cannot say that knowing (according to the rules that I use to determine whether anyone exists) someone or Someone exists would force me to love that person. Why would love be forced by knowing God exists? I would think that if He truly wanted unforced love, He wouldn’t send those who reject Him to Hell, not just simply make His existence ambiguious. If He must send people to Hell, yet wants unforced love, why not make consignment to Hell to be due to evil acts alone, and love of God to make no difference one way or another?

This reminds me of the story of the rabbi who did something so terrible that G-d told him he would never go to heaven. Upon hearing this, the rabbi began to sing and dance with joy, much to the confusion of those who knew what happened. “But you’re never going to heaven!” they said. “Why are you happy?” The rabbi answered, “All my life when I did the mitzvot I could never be sure whether I did them out of love of G-d or for hope of reward. Now that I have no hope of reward, I can truly serve G-d from love alone! Praise G-d!”

Is your premise that most people are given the same amount of evidence to believe/disbelieve in God, but those who are made uncomfortable by the idea of a Lord God Almighty willingly reject this? I really dislike the “atheists are somehow lacking to disbelieve in God” theories, even the more accepting ones, but I realize theists must find some way to cram us in their worldview. ::sigh:: :frowning:

Gaudere:

Not quite. That’s a very judgmental framework in which to site my premise, and not where I’m coming from. I’m proposing a spectrum of (in)credulity ranging from the hyperskepticism I hypothecated some months ago through reasonable skeptics like you and David and the Snopes contingent to rational believers like myself and RT Firefly, and on to more doctrinaire believers that have turned off their skepticism as regards matters theological, True Believers of all stripes (not just fundy. Christians but New Agers who are somehow convinced of the efficacy of crystals, etc.), down to the gullible who can be convinced that buffalo wings are vestigial remains of a Pegasiform past growing on plains bison. The key point here is that both extremes are plainly, well, extremist, but any point on the reasonable area of the spectrum is “better” or “worse” than another.

To be quite frank, I think that while God does judge, He judges in mercy and with better knowledge of us than we have of ourselves, and that He sends nobody to Hell against their will, but allows them the free will to turn from Him and go there in full knowledge of what the choice entails. This does not mean that you “so choose” by rejecting the gospel of hate preached by John Q. Fundamentalist, or what I have to suggest as “the most probable interpretation of what my hypothetical God did” that does not meet your criteria for reasonable acceptance. Rather it is that at some point, having been made fully aware of His reality, you consciously decide, this is not for me, and take a life course that actively rejects Him.

I’m not suggesting that I parse the evidence better than you, but one thing that we can agree on is that I am certainly more credulous than you. And, IMHO, He will not judge you until He has presented you evidence sufficient to convince you.

I appreciate the clarification, Poly. Saying that God is merciful to allow His presence to be questionable sounded a bit as if atheists are the sort who are scared of or can’t “handle” God–not terribly flattering, but an opinion I hear a lot. I’ve learned not to get too pissy apout all the things some people think I “must” be because I am an atheist, but still… :slight_smile:

Can you elaborate? I find it hard to believe that even Hitler would continue to reject God (assuming he did) when faced with the full knowledge of the consequence of eternal torture. Although IIRC your Hell is nicer, and simply the absence of God, which makes a difference. What do you consider actively rejecting God?

Oh what a tangled web we weave …

I knew I shouldn’tve waited until tonite to answer! Too much to respond to. I’ll do my best.

First, since Gaudere things I’m ignoring Tracer, I’ll answer him/her first. (By the way for any who are interested I’m a he).

Tracer, you said: “Why doesn’t He just put on a nightly light-show spelling out the words “Believe Jesus died for your sins and you’ll go to heaven, otherwise you’ll burn to a crisp” in 20-foot high letters of fire or something? Most “unsaved” people do not “know in their hearts that the Gospels are true but reject them anyway”; they simply reject the Gospels for lack of evidence.”

First of all, can’t ya just picture it? Families putting out chairs on their front lawn at 7 PM each night, roasting hot dogs, all waiting for God to declare the plan of salvation again.

Tracer I have no scriptural argument one way or the other on this … all I have is what I think are some common sense points. This would NOT, in any way, shape, or form, work. Why you ask?

Really understanding salvation requires discussion and long-term change of thought. A one time slogan giving the basic gospel doesn’t take into account questions such as the ones posted on this bboard in this thread.

Plus … there’s clear evidence all around that it doesn’t work. We are the most gospel-saturated country on the planet, and yet MANY have heard it and chosen not to act on it.

Finally … to be honest, a glowing light show with the gospel spelled out by fire would be (are you ready) LESS dramatic than the things I’ve seen God do in unbelievers lives to get their attention.

Make no mistake: the Bible says this AND it’s just obvious if you look carefully into people’s lives long enough: NO ONE has an excuse. No one on judgment day will be able to say, “But no one told me! I didn’t understand!”

I submit that God aggressively goes after each individual human being on the planet to show Himself to them. I have NEVER known a person that came to Christ that didn’t have stories of dozens of times that God tried to get their attention, but they didn’t listen or want to hear it.

In fact, and I know you’ll laugh but I gotta say it anyway … I sincerely believe, despite my mistakes, that the things I am saying in this thread is God’s current attempt to get the attention of all those who are reading.

… ( moving quickly to another topic before someone decimates me :smiley: …)

Guadere and Esprix … I have some interesting responses for both of you, but I’m about to watch a tv show from 8 - 9 PM. Shortly after that I will continue this and post my responses to your last posts.
By the way, I would just like to say that depite our, ah, how to say this - SLIGHT difference of opinion on certain things, thanks to all of you who’ve welcomed me to this msgboard. I am enjoying the challenge of explaining the truth of the Bible in hopefully somewhat understandable terms.

There’s quite a difference between hearing some preacher make claims about a supposed deity and being able to see a nightly miracle.

Ok Gaudere, let me get to your post now.

You said: “I still don’t think you’ve explained how this is just. We don’t consider it just for a judge to take a murderer’s punishment upon himself. Punishment for sins or crimes is not some thing can floats around that can be accepted by anyone; to be justice, the deserving person must be punished. If you are going to be merciful and not punish the deserving one, it does not simply become just because you punish someone else; in fact, it becomes less just. To punish one for the crimes of another does not fulfill the demands of justice.”

Gaudere, I will confess that I have wrestled with how to explain this one. It’s a tough point, and a good one. I will tell you that … are you ready for this? … God is using YOU in MY life! He is using you to cause me to come up with clear and understandable explanations of God’s truth, to a depth that I’ve never done before.

I have the feeling you’ll be fairly shocked at the answer. I’ll tell you exactly how it came to me. I was turning the phrase over and over in my head: “to be justice, the deserving person must be punished” … it kept repeating in my mind like one of those sappy TV moments when you hear a phrase echoing over and over.

Then it hit me. “Of course!” Justice demands that the guilty party is punished … that’s TRUE! And no, that DIDN’T happen! THAT’S THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT! THAT’S THE WHOLE BOTTOM LINE of what God is trying to say in the Bible.

Here it is plain and simple – I, FriendOfGod, DESERVE TO DIE for my sins. I’m guilty. God’s justice says so. God’s MERCY intervenes … He says, “I’ll take the punishment for you.” Is that justice? NO, it’s not … and THANK GOODNESS!!! If true justice was meted out to me and you, we would have no hope at all because we are all hopelessly guilty!!

So to quote you once again: “I still don’t think you’ve explained how this is just.” You’re right, and I never will, cuz it’s NOT! It’s MERCY! I DON’T deserve to go to heaven, but thankfully God was merciful enough to give you and I the option!!

Does it make sense? As you said, “We don’t consider it just for a judge to take a murderer’s punishment upon himself.” You’re right it’s not just! It’s an incredibly, astonishingly gracious act of mercy.

I also realized something else here. My analogy of an earthly judge was actually starting to get in the way of the main point. There is no way an earthly judge could take the punishment for a murderer, because … I mean who is the judge? What gives him the right? He’s a sinner too! HE’S under the law too!

But God is NOT under the law … He IS the law. He is literally at the top of the top rung of authority. And He made the decision … I will come and take the punishment for everyone’s sins, so that if they would believe in me, they would never have to die.

I feel strongly like quoting John 3:16 right now. I am so filled with gratefulness to God as I write this that I am genuinely near tears. Gaudere, I KNOW you don’t fully see this but God loves you SO MUCH. He so wants you to see this. Maybe He chooses not to do it through night lights in the sky, but maybe He can do it through an imperfect vessel like myself. Let’s look at this beautiful verse:

“For God SO LOVED the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have ETERNAL LIFE.”

Beautiful. Thank you God for your mercy.

I’m going to repond to the other points in my next post. I want the power of this verse to linger before I move on.

whew (wipes face with a kleenex) grin

Okay, I’m ready to move on now!

Gaudere there’s one more point you made that I’d like to respond to: “I’m wondering ‘why did God set it up so that innocent blood was required before sins were forgiven/covered?’”

I am pretty sure I already answered this in detail. If it didn’t make sense, please clarify for me. I’m going to quote myself from earlier in the thread. Please respond by telling me what specifically in this you don’t understand or agree with:

(Beginning of quote)
“Gaudere said: “God could have set up the world so blood sacrifice was not necessary to absolve sin.” Not true. Let me put it in the most stark terms I have so far. The message of God is clear in the Bible - if you sin, you deserve to die. In other words, if I sin, I deserve to have my lifeblood drained out of my body. MY blood deserves to be shed. God in His mercy allows the blood of an innocent substitute to take the place of my blood.”
(End of quote)

You responded that you still didn’t see why this had to be, because God is the one who made the rules. I then responded:

(Beginning of quote)
“So it’s not about “God making rules”. God just IS certain things (holy, loving, and just to name a few), and in order for man to get to Him, certain things have to happen that incorporate who He is.”
(end of quote)

In all sincerity – please tell me what in the above statements aren’t satisfactory to you. I’ll try my best to explain further.
Okay, I’ll end this post, then FINALLY get to responding to Esprix in the next one.

I’ll let tracer use his able intellect on your response to his question…

So God is not just? He has no need or desire to mete out punishments to anyone, He just punishes Himself for the heck of it? For it is not just to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, even if they want you to do so. So justice does not demand He punish Himself; neither does mercy. What is it that demands the innocent suffer to save the guilty, and Who would ever make a world where this was necessary?

::shrug:: So God decides people need to be punished, but He won’t accept that, so He decides to punish Himself, nevermind that this is not just or logical. Oh, or He can let people kill innocent animals too. He is not just at all–He does not mete out punishment to those who deserve it. Yet I cannot figure why He must punish the innocent as well as spare the guilty. I think it simply comes down to this: a wholly just judge uniformly and fairly punishes those who deserve it. A wholly merciful judge does not punish fairly those who deserve it. I think you must pick one or the other; you can’t have a perfectly merciful judge at the same time you have a perfectly just judge.

What is it about holiness that requires the shedding of innocent blood to spare the guilty? Does it truly seem the best move to require the guilty to kill the innocent to save themselves from the consequences of their crimes? And this is seen as the ultimate Good, the ulitmate Holiness?!

Okay Esprix, I’m gonna try to answer your questions as best as I can.

First quote: "First of all, y’all are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. " NO KIDDING! Maybe we should start another post on “General Christian Beliefs” or something.

Second quote: “Thank you for making my case for me. Sure, they went for a time without sex and waited until marriage. I’m happy for them. But you said it yourself - they did have sex. So why am I not allowed to? This is one of the many reasons I’m not Christian.”

Of course they had sex - HOLY sex that God can honor and bless. You and I are both allowed to have sex Esprix, in fact we are expressly ENCOURAGED to have sex BY GOD in the context of a husband and wife in marriage! What you’re really asking is “Why am I not allowed to have sex IN THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE HAD?” (That was awful grammar but I couldn’t think of another way to say it). Please realize there are many HETEROsexual people who are UNMARRIED that are in the same boat as you. Or many MARRIED people who want to have sex with someone other than their mate. In all 3 cases, the individuals think they understand sex better than God does, and they want to do it “their way”.

I will say this … I admire you for being honest enough to note that choosing to live the lifestyle you live is not compatable with Christianity. One of the most dangerous deceptions around today is that you can sleep around before marriage, sleep with people of the same sex, sleep with someone who’s not your mate … and still be a Christian. NOT true. See the verse I quoted ages ago in my first response to this post (I think).

Quote # 3: “But of course Christianity denies same-sex couples the opportunity to get married - nice little catch-22 to prevent us from having any meaningful relationships.”

Well, of course. That would endorse the relationship! No one’s preventing you from doing anything. It’s just that you cannot choose to have a romantic/sexual relationship with someone of the same sex and be a Christian at the same time.

Fourth and final quote: “Then please, O Christian One, give me your advice on how Dr. Boyfriend and I should conduct ourselves in our relationship. Deny our love? Go off and enter into shallow, meaningless shells of marriages with women we neither love, are attracted to or wish to be married to? Celibacy? Engage in much hugging and hand-holding? Become priests? Check into a mental hospital? Is Jesus going to cure my homosexuality?”

This gets to the heart of the issue doesn’t it?

Esprix all I can tell you is this. EVERYone, myself included, is born with an inclination to sin. For some, it’s an inclination toward alcohol. For some it’s pornography. For some it’s sleeping around. And for some, it’s homosexuality.

So I BELIEVE people who tell me they grew up and felt attracted to the same sex. Just like someone else grew up and felt an inclination to sleep with women outside of marriage. Just like someone else grew up and felt an inclination to become a drunk.

We ALL grow up with inclinations to sin. We ALL grow up with inclinations toward CERTAIN sins. It’s the ole catch phrase “everyone has their weak point.” The problem in this case is that you’ve EMBRACED your weak point and decided to say that “that’s just who I am”. You don’t see it as weak at all… you see it as “who you are” and you can’t change it.

Well guess what … you can’t change it. Neither can the person who has a tendency to sleep with women outside of marriage. Neither can the person who has a tendency to cheat on his mate. We are all hopelessly, helplessly, sinful. And, in fact, SEEING this fact is the first step in coming to Christ.

Ever heard the Christian cliche, “saved”? (I know, that’s like asking if you’ve heard of McDonalds). The fact is, you CAN’T be “saved” until you realize you NEED to be saved. You can’t realize you NEED to be saved until you see yourself as someone hopelessly trapped by your own sins.

Everything you jokingly suggested you do (except the last one) is something that you couldn’t do if you wanted to. The only hope of change is Jesus changing WHO YOU ARE from the inside out. And yes, He can cure you – just like He can cure the alcoholic, the pornographer, etc etc. We are hopeless without Him, but THROUGH Him ALL things are possible.

I know this firsthand Esprix. When I lived in Atlanta from 1991 - 1996, I was privilaged to be roommates for the first three years with two men, one of whom was a formerly gay man. He came to Christ 9 months before I met him. He had been HEAVILY into the gay lifestyle for over a decade and had had many lovers.

So many so, tragically, that he contracted HIV.

Ironically, he only discovered this AFTER he came to Christ. He began walking with Christ, and went through a PROCESS, just like all new believers do, of walking out of the sinful lifestyle he’d been a part of.

During our 3rd year of being roommates, this guy fell in love with a wonderful woman in our church. They married and now have two beautiful children. The AMAZING, and miraculous thing is – neither his wife nor the kids contracted the HIV! I’ll be honest, this guy and his wife have TEN TIMES the faith that I do. I don’t know if I could’ve married and had kids if I’d known I had HIV, but this guy did it and trusted God to protect His wife and kids, and He did.

Anyway, the point is … yes God can heal you. I realize this post may have offended you, maybe even drastically. I pray not. I wouldn’t risk incurring your wrath or anyone else’s if I didn’t believe this to be the truth.

Last quote: “You didn’t know this? Jeez, I really need to be more open about my sexuality on this board…”
Well, I’m sure you’ve been open but I’ve only been on this board for a week and a half. Rest assured, I’m aware of where you stand now! :slight_smile:

Peace. G’night, and I hope you at least consider what I’ve said.

Hi again Gaudere. Boy this topic seems like it’ll never end, huh? But it’s a good discussion.

I’m going to start with a very interesting quote:
“So God is not just?”
He is not only just, He is perfectly just.

God pouring out His wrath on Jesus in some way satisfied His justice. His mercy allowed me to go free because His justice was satisfied through Jesus and not through me. It isn’t “just” that I wasn’t punished for my sins – yet somehow God’s justice was satisfied. God’s mercy is like a bridge between His love and His justice.

I KNOW this whole issue is difficult to grasp. I’m trying to think of good examples. Here’s several that I think might help.

First: I don’t think God’s justice is the same thing we picture in an American courtroom. Maybe the problem is we’re defining justice in an Americanized way, and God has a different definition.
Second: God’s wrath is almost like an instant reaction to sin, because He’s perfectly holy. Sin is instantly decimated in His presence. There is instant justice. What Jesus did is take that sin on HIMSELF, thus “deflecting” the aim of God’s wrath. God’s justice and wrath were still poured out, but instead of being poured out on me, it was poured out on Jesus.
Third: take what you just read and put it into this scenario: imagine yourself walking into God’s throneroom with all your sins. The wrath of God instantly begins to be poured out on you because of your sin. Then Jesus steps in front of you and takes God’s wrath for you. It’s literally like taking a bullet for someone. He died to literally save your life.
Fourth: let me polish up that last example a little. In REALITY, I can walk boldly into God’s presence because Jesus lives IN me. God’s wrath for my sin is absorbed by Jesus who lives inside me. I know that’s deep but I hope it gives you at least somewhat of an idea of what I mean.

So hopefully that helped flesh out God’s justice somewhat. I know it probably raises more questions (and I’m confident you’ll ask them Gaudere :)).

Here’s a quote that goes along with what I just said:
"I think you must pick one or the other; you can’t have a perfectly merciful judge at the same time you have a perfectly just judge. "
I’d think so too … and if we were dealing with human beings you’d probably be right. But we’re dealing with God. God is capable of things we can’t even imagine. I still have much to learn about it. A thousand years from now in Heaven, I can pretty much guarantee that I’ll still be learning new things about God’s character.

Next quote:
“He just punishes Himself for the heck of it?”
No certainly not just for the heck of it. That should be clear by now. He does it as a substitute for having to punish us. I’ve kinda covered that I thought.

I’m going to combine the next two quotes because they’re basically about the same thing:
“What is it that demands the innocent suffer to save the guilty, and Who would ever make a world where this was necessary?”
“What is it about holiness that requires the shedding of innocent blood to spare the guilty? Does it truly seem the best move to require the guilty to kill the innocent to save their lives? And this is seen as the ultimate Good, the ulitmate Holiness?!”

First paragraph, second phrase first: God did NOT make a world where this was necessary. He made a PERFECT world and we screwed it up by choosing to sin. But that’s a whole topic in itself.

Second paragraph / First paragraph, first phrase:
You know what? I’m going to directly answer you, but first I want to give you a challenge. You seem convinved that the system God set up doesn’t make sense. Here’s the challenge: give me an alternative. What else could God have done? Give me ANY alternative. I think I will better understand why you’re not getting my point if I can see an example of something else that you think might work.

My direct answer to your quote - here’s the logical train of thought:
God is Holy, so nothing UnHoly can enter His presence. If I walk into His presence with sin, God’s wrath is poured out on me and my blood is shed … I die. But out of God’s love, He wants me to be able to come into His presence (ie He doesn’t want to have to pour out His wrath on me).

God CANT just “let me come in anyway” because that wrath, that sense of Justice, has to be satisfied. So God steps in Himself and offers Himself as the sponge to receive that wrath. Then God’s mercy allows HIS BLOOD to cover us so we can enter His presence.

I think I’ve covered some of this in bits and pieces before. Maybe seeing it all together here will help.

Guadere I have one more question before I go. You seem pretty determined with each response to find nothing but questions. I don’t mind the questions, but is there any part of this discussion that’s clicking with you? Any parts at all that you are agreeing with? I’m just curious.

Have a good day tomorrow. I can’t believe I’m still up!!! I did it again! I’ll check for responses tomm PM.

It would seem that Friend of God has more up-to-date reference material than I do. And since (other than Gaudere) my comments are being ignored here, I must give deference to FoG authority on what Christianity is all about.

But the last time I looked, it involved the simple taking of Jesus Christ as Lord of your life and your Savior, and being baptized (if you haven’t already been) in token of that, and then living the life that you understand Him to want of you.

These additional rules that would seem to preclude Esprix from being a Christian are ones that came along after my conversion, and nobody has bothered to keep me up to date on them. I will need to take this up with the Holy Spirit next time I have some serious prayer.

In the interim, carry on. I’ll watch from the sidelines from time to time.


Any elements of sarcasm in the above post are purely intentional.

I just realized I never finished the excursus that I took Gaudere on by responding to her last question. The answer, quite simply, is that one knowingly turns away from God by knowingly turning away from God. I’m not using metaphor here; if you are adequately convinced that there is a God who wants something to do with you and decide that that is not your cup of tea, he will honor your decision. Pure and simple. Having doubts is not ground for condemnation (or most every Christian from St. Thomas on would be burning along with the rest of deceased humanity). Lack of knowledge, misunderstanding the story, failure to commit before you’re certain of what it is you’re committing to, besetting “sins” – addictive personality, habitual self-abuse (not meaning masturbation) – none of these is grounds for condemnation. The bottom line is, you judge yourself; he confirms the judgment. (That is my take on it; Friend of God seems to have a different take, and is running an altar call here that I’m fairly convinced is not precisely what God is looking for. Esprix, you really need to repent of being yourself…God doesn’t like it, or at least his Friends don’t.;))

On the other hand, I was at the Raleigh get-together with my wife. There were four couples present, one married just over 25 years (the Polycarps), one engaged (Satan and Drain Bead), one whose marital status I’m not sure of (Psychocopulator and his Feline accomplice), and one barred by law from marrying (SqrlCub and dcnewsman). Other than the obvious, I failed to see a great deal of difference in the relationships. But then, I guess I’m looking at God’s will through a FoG. :wink: