Sorry dude, but IMO you just lost the debate right there. The point of a debate is to put forward a case suported with logic or valid reaosning. Imagination doesn’t enter it. If Der Trihs failed to understadn what you mean then the failing is in your explanation, not in his ability to ‘imagine’ what you meant. He doesn’t have to imagine. You are required to explain and provide evidence for your position.
In short “you lack the imagination to understand my argument” is not avalid rebuttal. It’s a cop out, and usually a synonym for “I lack the baility explain myself coherently and rationally”.
I do know what you mean, but that’s because I understand it’s a ripoff of Indic religions and a bit of New Age stuff thrown in to boot. But as I said, if you include the Indic concept of eternal souls and material existence being ephemeral and inconsequential then you have abandonded the very basis of Christianity. Any material sacrifice by Jesus must also be ephemeral and inconsequential, yet the Bible specifically says that the sacrifice was to last for all time and of paranount importance. That’s the direct anithesis of ephemeral and inconsequential.
::sigh:: I never catch these threads early enough to post my opinion without either having to respond to dozens of things already on the table, or feel like I’m intruding on the tail end of a discussion that has probably lost the attention of most of the people who read the OP anyway. But, FWIW, here is my most pithy explanation of my understanding of the Christian doctrine of the atonement. It comes from the latter half of [url= this thread, which developed into quite a complex discussion of many aspects of Christian theology, but if you skim past the first couple of paragraphs in my post, I think you’ll find my discussion of atonement stands on its own. For your convenience, I’ll quote it here:
As I’m sure I’ve posted somewhere here before, it’s important to note that all Christian theology, even Scripture, is in an important sense secondary to the experiential fact of God’s forgiveness in Christ. Many, many Christians (and most notably the original disciples) have believed not because they were taught to, but because they have subjectively experienced what they understand as God’s grace. Theology is the attempt, by those who have experienced God’s grace, to understand it in light of what others have experienced and what they believe they have come to understand about the nature of God, the person of Christ, and the nature of human beings. For such people, no amount of failure by theology to develop a completely satisfactory understanding can undermine their belief in the fact of their own experience. For those (like myself) who have not had such an experience and are not willing or able to rely on the Christian experiences of others, no theology will likely ever be successful enough to overcome the fundamental lack of evidence.
An interetsing concept Alan Smithee and one I’ll give some more thought to. But for now I just have two questions.
The first is the same question that has been asked by a dozen people a dozen tme s in this thread. Why was it necessary for an omnipotent God to provide some focal point by which we could understand God taking on our pain? Why couldn’t he just zap that understanding into our brians?
I understand what you are saying about the nature of forgiveness being largely one of empathy mutual acceptance of blame. I really do. But it seems so almost comical that an omnipotent deity can only generate empathy and blame acceptance by being nailed to a tree. Why not use telepathy to communicate exactly the same infromation, feelings, concepts and so forth?
The second question is more specifcally theological: doesn’t this concept deny the majesty and perfection of God even without the problem of omnipotence?
A limited human might need to show that he forgives by accepting blame and expressing sorrow. But that’s only necessary because humans can lie, so if I don’t show sorrow and accpet balme I might well be just lying and not truly forgiving. My forgiveness might be meaningless because my words so often have no meaning. But God’s words never have no meaning. We are told that repeatedly in the Bible. He can’t lie. His word is truth. If God says he forgives then can’t we be sure that he has forgiven, and that he means every word he says. If so then why the need for all that violence to get the point across? And if we can’t accept that God means what he says then why accept what he says about the sacrifice even happening?
Like I said, the stuff about the nature of forgiveness requires deeper thought, but I still fail to see how it goes any way to answering the basic question of why this was necessary for a God who can accomplish anything any way he likes. I could see this being necessray for a human King, but why for God?
I see your point. Mine was this. When an atheist and a believer have a discussion it does require imagination. When we propose* if* there is an omnipotent benevolent God and argue from a what if * position that is imagination isn’t it?
What* Der Trihs** did, and almost always does in this type of thread, is go from the what if arguement to simply stateing his own lack of belief. He is free to do so but it doesn’t move the discussion forward to respond “I don’t believe” in the midst of a what if type of discussion. I already knew that. So I responded with sarcasm.
It wasn’t intended to be a rebuttal since I felt Der Trihs had already abandoned the real arguement by his response. I have no problem explaining but I don’t feel any explanation is nessecary or useful to that type of response.
Coming from a more traditional Christian background I’ve done a lot of reading about other religions. I feel that people from different cultures have all sought to solve spiritual mysteries and most have some kernal of truth contained within their myth and traditions. I don’t any one tradition or religion has all the answers. It’s not an attempt to “ripoff” any belief but rather to decide for myself what the answers might be.
My own belief is that Christianity has in large part misunderstood and distorted what Jesus was actually teaching so I’m really not interested in argueing from position of traditional Christian views. Now I’ll get back to your previous post.
No, I pointed out where we come from is right here; there is no “what if” involved. You certainly didn’t phrase it as a “what if”; Your statement was like saying “what if we are all lizard aliens wearing masks ?” . We’re not; that’s the answer.
No, you opened a new arguement by claiming we are from somewhere else.
I’m afraid i’m siding with cosmosdan on this one. He/she’s right, if you’re going to try and understand the other person (and understand their debate) you have to be able to imagine what it is like for the other person. I’m not saying you always can imagine that - but you should always try, otherwise, what’s the point of debate?
Ouch. Again, I have to agree. Der Trihs does sometimes have good points, but they come at the expense of a general sprinkling of “religion = bad!” all over the post. If you can debate without bile, that’d be good.
Sorry, you’ve lost me again. Der Trihs may be quite angry, and show his anger, against religion, but you’re still entitled to answer his arguments. If he had completely ignored the debate altogether, posted random thoughts, and swept off, then you could ignore him - but, while they may be not the most polite posts, he is still arguing. You’re obliged to answer that argument, in whatever way it is phrased. It’d be fine to ask him to not be so, uh, angry, though.
Hmm. Logically, it’s likely that over the years, people have discovered some spiritual mysteries, and may have some degree of “truth”. Equally though it’s likely that over the years a collection of hogwash and nonsense has been gathered, too - the problem is recognising and seperating them, something I admit is usually beyond me.
Fair enough. However, my last post in this thread showed that God cannot logically be omnipotent, benevolent, and not touching free will at the same time in a situation where Jesus is killed. If you can think up a way in which this could occur, which keeps those base premises of God intact, then i’ll have been proved wrong. Can you do that?
My point was that in the mortal realm it* is * sometimes in the best interest to allow the child to have the unpleasent experience. {I know you got that} I’m not argueing that God can’t make it so we avoid the unpleasent experience. My point is that in order for us to choose there must be things to choose from. Without that there is no either or. If the purpose is the experience of free will {or the simulation of} then both pain and pleasure must exist.
I simply don’t agree with you that God’s omnpotence and benevolence somehow obligates him to use it to remove all suffering.
OKay, but that seems to entail the nature of suffering. I don’t think Jesus made a blood sacrifice for the sins of mankind for many of the reasons expressed in this thread. To me the point, at least in part, is that Jesus lived according to the truth of a higher spiritual reality and remained steadfastly true to it regardless of the temporary physical consequences. That’s the essence of his messege.
I’m not attempting to slide around anything. We just don’t seem to be getting each other.
We don’t agree. Point one okay
point two. I think the loving father aspect of God is just a sometimes useful metaphor. It also holds people back in a sense that some desire to remain children and have Daddy take care of them. I see us more as peers or at least a part of God. In the Bible it calls God and Jesus the head and us the body. That means in essence we are the same stuff.
point 3, moot perhaps, but I’ll say that often the children don’t see the purpose and think the whole thing is BS. As they mature {we hope} they see things differently.
point 4; um…okay. A thought occurs to me here about the nature of God. IMO the nature of God is love and truth. Does that mean God can’t choose to lie or be hateful or just doesn’t because it’s not his nature? I don’t think either is true.
I don’t agree. I repeat, if choice and the experience are the point, then a loving and benevolent God would allow it without being contrary to omnipotence or benevolence.
I completely undertstand the lack of limitations. I don’t agree with your insistance that allowing the experience of choice and it’s consequences violates benevolence.
That is not my intent. I understand the difficulties of the human parent analogy. I use it only to attempt to illustrate my own point that allowing experience can be benevolent. Especially if the purpose is for your children to be your adult peers rather than remain children.
Look, I’m not argueing against omnipotence or that God is limited in choices. I’m saying the choice that has been made does not violate benevolance or omnipotence.
No, instead I am agreeing and assuming omnipotence.
I would say omnipotence makes that a yes.
And we obviouosly disagree on the significance of this and how it relates. I think what Jesus was trying to teach us was that we should strive to live as eternal spiritual beings while still in the physical. Thats why he said to not place our value or to much impotance on things that fade away. In other disciplines it is observed that we create a bunch of our own suffering by how we see things and the limits we place on ourselves.
A valid point. You’ll notice that Jesus dealt with the physical suffering of others and encouraged his followers to do the same. I don’t think it’s about whether we suffer or not but more what we choose. Do we choose to seek out and remain true to our spiritual nature as Jesus did. I don’t believe the point was for Jesus to suffer but that it was being true to his spiritual nature despite the events unfolding around him that led to his ultimate physical demise. It his living that is worthy of worship.
No arguement here since I don’t believe that the suffering and death of Jesus was the point.
Pardon my ignorence but I’m not familiar with the phrase “turtles all the way down” Where did that come from?
Back on point; I never said experiencing pain is the point. It is the experience of being able to choose and having something to choose.
I repeat. I haven’t said experiencing pain is the point. Rather than make assumptions and misquote me, I’d rather you asked me to clarify.
You seem to be insisting that unless I agree with the point you keep asserting then I am avoiding it. I’m not. I just don’t agree. God could have created things differently but this is the way things are. Your conclusion seems to be that because bad stuff happens a benevolent God must not exist. I don’t agree.
I don’t worship Jesus for that reason, nor for that matter do a lot of Christians.
I’ve already responded to this. I don’t hold traditional Christian beliefs. That doesn’t mean I can’t worship Jesus or have opinions about his life and death.
Sigh, we seem to be going in circles. I never said God is limited. I doesn’t consider this a flaw. I am commenting on how things are, or at least how I percieve them at this point. It seems this doesn’t meet with your definition of what constitutes omnipotent and benevolent. Fair enough. It doesn’t mean I don’t get it because I don’t agree.
Can we have choice with only one thing to choose? Omnipotence says yes but there no conclusion to draw from that fro me.
Don’t get nasty. I never said I didn’t understand the topic. I only commented that dealing with topics like ominpotence and eternity can be tricky because they are hard to comprehend. You say my analogy is invalid but you yourself make the comparision when drawing your conclusion about what constitutes omnipotence and benevolence.
Since we don’t seem to be making any headway I’m content to drop it.
Please… the discusion began with *if *there is a omnipotent benevolent God. Thats the what if.
It didn’t seem like a new arguement to me. Assuming God is, it is reasonable to assume we are not mere physical mortals. Since we were discussing Jesus saving our souls that seems to be the case. I am well{and I mean well} aware that you don’t believe but when you get into a what if type arguement I don’t need a reminder. If I go off on a what if tangent that you don’t feel is relevant to the discussion {which I know I do occasionaly} then feel free to point it out.
This is an echo of Augustine’s argument that the bad must exist in order for us to appreciate the good.
Just the same, I don’t see why God had to provide and either/or. I don’t believe that there is any a priori requirement that God had to provide a choice. I don’t think the question of why there is evil in a universe created by an omipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator has ever been satisfactorily answered.
I agree with you here. IMO he didn’t make rational arguements but just chose to sarcastically dump on my suggestions while doing his usual venting. I didn’t think it deserved a rational response.
Beyond most of us I think. I’ve just decided to continue looking and sorting and draw my own conclusions. I also try to maintain a respect for others right to do the same until their beliefs spill over into my life. A more recent conclusion of mine is that religious views and the actions that spring from those beliefs deserve no special treatment or status. Love is love, and hate is hate. Honesty and dishonesty, kindness and shelfishness. Whatever path we choose it’s the effect it has on the world at large that we can challenge.
Do you mean your last post, the response to Trust or the one I’m about to respond to?
Neither do I. One concept that intrigues me is the idea that it is not God who created these things but us. If we are connected to each other and to God on a level that is undeniable then what would happen if we decided to believe that fundamental truth wasn’t true. What if we denied that truth and chose to believe we were seperate from God and each other. A big Bang perhaps? That might mean that as long as we cling to that seperation lie, then we are the ones creating the good and evil choices. God in essence is saying, “Are you sure you want to do that?” and we are in the process of decideing.
Now the arguement is that an omnipotent God could just make us know that we are not seperate and poof, no more problems. Okay, but I’m not convinced that the fact that doesn’t happen instantly proves anything. As I’ve said. Perhaps experiencing the choice process is part of the purpose. It doesn’t have to be. It just is. So we are left to choose when we will release the illusion of seperateness and embrace the unity.
OKay…As I’ve said , I don’t believe the torture and death of Christ was the point, or conquered physical death. I think the point was his life and his message. By living spiritual truths regardless of physical consequences he raised the spiritual consciousness of those around him and thereby, the world. Granted, that raised consciousness is sometimes hard to find, but hey, if physical evolution can take millions of years then the spiritual legacy of Jesus is still in it’s infancy.
I don’t think Jesus chose to die although he seemed to understand the society he lived in enough to realize that’s where he was headed. What he chose was to live the spiritual truth he percieved even if it cost him his physical life. That end and the details of it were brought about by the choices of others.
Since he came from heaven and returned to heaven I don’t see how Jesus death or the circumstances violates the benevolence, or omnipotence of God.
Cosmodan it’s becoming quite clear that you don’t subscribe to any belief that is in any way similar to Christianity. You are free to call yourself a Christian of cource, I’m not attempting a true Scotsman, but your beleifs have little relevance to this thread.
You don’t believe that the death and suffeirng of Christ was of paramount importance. You don’t believe the efffects of his suffering will endure for all time and that man can only achieve immortality because Christ suffered and died. Those are key concepts for Christians
You OTOH believe that Christ’s death and suffering was transient and ephememeral and of no real consequence. As such your beliefs have no bearing at all on a thread about why Christ’s suffering is of paramount and eternal importance. I really can’t see what you hope to contribute to this thread.
I think a more economical supposition is that the universe exists with certain natural features through some means we don’t yet knew. We come into the world, exist in it for a time while its features along with our actions sometimes result in bad things and sometimes good, and we then exit and are seen no more.
Excuse me?? You might note that I **never ** said I was a Christian even implied it. Since you and others are participating and are obviouosly not Christian I think my beliefs are just as relevant as yours.
So what? The OP asked that these concepts be explained. It didn’t ask for you and others to come in and dump on those concepts but you felt free to do so.
Um… as much as you have. Although I don’t think of myself as Christian I do have a Christian background and I offered an alternative idea to the purpose of the life of Christ. Nothing in the OP requested only Christian participation, or only the pro and con of traditional Christion view. You are free to whatever opinion you choose to hold but I think you are way off base with this post. Since the OP responded to my posts and asked me questions I take that as an invitation to contribute and an acknowledgement that my posts were at least somewhat relevant and interesting . I think you’ll understand if I let the OP and the mods decide the relevance of my posts and not you.
Perhaps you can explain how posts that Christian beliefs about Jesus are a load of crap help clarify the paramount and eternal importance of his suffering and death.
Yes, since I believe we are eternal spiritual beings then all tempoary physical suffering is transient. That doesn’t mean I think its irrelevant when it is happening.
Yes, thats exactly what you do. You constantly assert that what you imagine to be true is actually true over and over again here on the SDMB. That being the case I retract my previous statement. You obviously do think and have an imagination even if it appears a fairly negative one.
