But what if you were not 100% certain? What if you were so unsure that you prayed to your Father to remove the burden from you if there were any way He could see to do it. Suppose that, in the end, you simply had to go on trust and faith. Is it then a sacrifice?
That’s a mighty broad brush there, Gobear. It’s like something from a Jack Chick tract on Islam.
Yeah. If we all started loving one another, God only knows what could happen.
Ok. If you say so. Which is why in my first post I explained that if you don’t accept some of the essential tenets of the Christian world-view then Christ’s death and resurrection will mean little to you. I especially think this is true for you considering that you believe all religion to be bullshit. But to call my explanation bullshit is well frankly bullshit. I explained to you the meaning of the event from my tradition of Christianity. You may not like what I believe but it is truly what I believe and I think I would have more knowledge of those beliefs than do you. You also made some leaps in your asessment of my example. I never mentioned eternal hell or infant damnation. Judging from your posts I can most certianly say that my concept of hell is quite different from what you would like my concept of hell to be. I also don’t know any Christians who believe that unbaptised infants who die go to hell. By the way, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. And in my Christian tradition original sin is an inherited condition that you choose to take part in. It is theoretically possible to live a sinless life but for some reason every person who has ever lived (except for one) chooses to partake in sin rather than avoid it. So original sin is more of a description of the situation humans find themselves in rather than a supernatural curse that is unfairly cast upon us. I hope that clears up a few misconceptions you seem to have. And please don’t call it bullshit and give examples of how these explanations don’t represent Christian dogma. There are several different Christian traditions alive today but you seem to want to define Christianity with the terms of your own choosing from the various traditions so that it is easier for you to call it bullshit. So please excuse us Christians for not accepting your defintion of Christianity as the definitive.
First, a slight hijack- dangermom’s LDS explanation of the Atonement gets cheers from me & I am in major disagreement with lots of LDS teachings & practices.
Second- while all the physical & emotional agony from Gesthemane through the mocking & scourging up to the Crucifixion all contributed to the Atonement, the core of it is in JC’s cry “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me”- essentially (and mine is a Trinitarian understanding) this is the one & only for all time actual rend in the Godhead, God ripping His Heart out for humanity. Also, this is God’s supreme act of identification with His alienated Creation.
Third- some here seem to get a kick from deriding the integrity of Father God & the pain of our Lord. While I do not believe in Eternal Torment (just temporal punishment concluding in reconciliation or non-existence), I do get a kick thinking of their embarrassment when they stand before Him.
[QUOTE=Libertarian]
That’s a mighty broad brush there, Gobear. It’s like something from a Jack Chick tract on Islam.
[quote]
Maybe some Protestant sects don’t believe in original sin, but it’s definitely taught in the church I was raised in.
Religion doesn’t have a very good track record in the love-thy-neighbor department.
Hey, no problem. I didn’t expect to be asked for more information, so I hope I didn’t take up too much space in what was, after all, supposed to be a thread on the more mainstream Christian beliefs.
Yeah, the consciously atheistic societies of the recent past have done SOOOO much better! G
Bullshit. You compared the averaga, decent person to a criminal being punished for crimes. I’ve never defrauded anyone in my life. And even the worst person who ever lived doesn’t deserve erternity in Hell.
Neither did I. Infant damnation is not spelled “o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l s-i-n.”
Again, didn’t mention baptism.
Typical Christian illogic. You can’t choose to take part in an inherited condition. That’s a contradiction.
[quote]
So original sin is more of a description of the situation humans find themselves in rather than a supernatural curse that is unfairly cast upon us. I hope that clears up a few misconceptions you seem to have. And please don’t call it bullshit and give examples of how these explanations don’t represent Christian dogma. There are several different Christian traditions alive today but you seem to want to define Christianity with the terms of your own choosing from the various traditions so that it is easier for you to call it bullshit.
[/quote
Spell out your tradition, so I’ll know what you believe, since you deny some basic Christian doctrines.
How very convenient to be able to dodge the tough questions by saying, “Not my tradition” w/o saying exactly what it is you do believe.
And try writing in paragraphs because your long block of text is hard on the eyes.
I don’t usually jump in threads that are this long. My observations that they usually go off point from the OP pretty quickly and stay that way. In fairly short order there are several sub threads going on that may be tangentially related. In this thread, that would include the presence (or absence…) of a burning hell, the justice (or injustice…) of infants or other “innocents” in the aforemetioned hell, and the reality (or unreality…) of the Trinity, “God as Man” concept. (and others)
I don’t think it is possible to tackle all of those concepts in a single thread. It ends up looking like an old party line phone where several conversation are going on at once.
It would also be appropriate to at least consider the bible for the answers posited in the OP right?
Qadgop the Mercotan said:
The bible doesn’t say that Christs’s sacrifice was somehow so super-duper that no other human could replicate the pain that he felt, nor that he had somehow cornered the market for pain or deprivation. After all, the account of his death mentions 2 other evil doers who were crucified right along side the Christ, right? (Matt 27:38)
The purpose of Christ’s death was not to show us how much pain he could endure, but the love that he had for mankind. (1 John 4:9,10) Christ was innocent. (as opposed to the other’s crucified next to him) But we know that other “innocent” men have been subjected to capital punishment, right? But Jesus was not an ordinary man. (Matt 3:17, Matt 17:5) But as a perfect man, Jesus was not subject to the death that being a sinful man ultimately earns all humans. (Rom 6:23)(1 Pet 2:22, Heb 7:26) Further, Christ was not powerless before his executioners. He had the power to stop them but submitted himself for a death that he did not deserve or earn. (John 10:17,18) (Matt 26:53,54)
To suggest that his death was not suffeciently painful, or that he didn’t stay dead long enough to impress you, misses the whole point of his gesture and the import it had for mankind.
God’s sense of justice required that a perfect human life had to be given to balance the ‘scales of justice’ in the wake of Adam & Eve’s disobediance. Because of their act, all humans were genetically imperfect, and as sinners were condemed to death.(Rom 5:12, Rom 6:23, see Ps 51:5) This was essentally a death sentence that we are born with.
It was not possible for any sinful human to essentially “redeem” us from the state of affairs that Adam & Eve put is in. (Ps. 49:6-9) We are (were) held as hostage to the death that awaits us all.
God’s is a god of justice. The sin that we inherited had to be answered for. It was an act of love and humility in that Christ volunteered to come and answer for the acts of Adam (& Eve) who were the only humans ever besides Christ to be born perfect. (See 2 Cor 5:14,15)
And that love is the point here. Whether you are a believer or not, the point of Christ’s death is not to show how tough he was, but the tremondous love he had for humankind. And appreciation for this sacrifice compels Christians to want to live their life in accordance with the pronciples that he displayed in his life and to reap the benefits of that sacrifice. (John 3:36, Heb 5:9)
I’ll quote the last 2 scriptures as I think they speak most directly to the OP, particularly the last question:
**1 John 4:9, 10
“By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrfifice for our sins”
Rom 5:7,8
Harldly will anyone die for a righteous man; indeed, for the good man, perhaps, someone even dares to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."**
It is possible, maybe likely, that you will find all of this hogwash. That’s your right. It’s also your right to frame up Christ’s death as a toughman contest of sorts and point to others who have suffered greater deprivation. You also may find it disengenuous considering he was alive and well 3 days later. But it is clear from the bible that the apostles and early Christians had a completely different perspective. My only point was to share with you, from the bible, what those perspectives were (are).
I cannot give you anything but my belief. I have no theological credentials, nor any apostolic authority. I have only utter assurance and complete confidence in the infinite love of God. I don’t do dueling verses, and believe that the Bible is what men saw, when they were given vision from God. They remained men, and spoke to other men. So, what was written is what was glimpsed through a tiny pinhole that is the human ability to perceive God.
So, here is what I saw, through the pinhole.
Death and eventual destruction bind the universe itself and every part of it. It is the nature of the physical world, and of every being in it. And from this world, by the Will of God, are born spirits that have within them the potential to move beyond finite limits. But that potential is only a reflection, or image of the nature of God, Himself.
That is original sin, as perceived by the legalistic view of ancient theology. Sin is what we do that is different from God, and we all do it. And with sin, comes death. A consequence, rather than a punishment, as I see it, but I see it only from my own prejudices. Alone, eternity is beyond us. So, God became human and lived as we live, and rose above death, so that we could know Him, and know that He knows of our burden. And it is His love that will lift us beyond this world, into whatever Heaven is.
What suffering does God endure? When you love your child, and your child strikes out at you, in wrath, and perhaps even in hatred, do you suffer? Has not every moment of human history been full of the wrath of man? Can you accept that every moment of every day in all of that history, and every moment of the future, as well amounts to the willingly assumed pain for the sins of mankind?
When your child is lost, even if not in rebellion, do you suffer? Can you accept that God suffers for every one of us who is lost? In bad human relationships, the callous quickly learn, that the one who cares the least, hurts the least. Can you see that infinite love must necessarily incur prodigious pain, and inevitable suffering? Yet the Lord chose to take this suffering upon Himself, and gave to us His love. He does this because He knows that our love will lift us above death, just as it did for Jesus. He calls for us to join Him in the only thing that lasts.
Nothing I say has authority. I speak out here only to make sure that the sacrifice of love is not shouted down by the hunger for some sort of justice. Love is so much greater than justice.
Today we celebrate in joy the Resurrection of the Lord. It is the expression of His love for you. His sacrifice is that He chooses always to love, even when it will be in vain, even when it will be despised, even when it will be ignored. And it fulfills the reconciliation of the evil in our own being, because by His choice love is given to each and all of us. Our choice is only to be willing to be loved. By reaching across that gulf, we become infinite. By refusing it, we remain bound to the world, which will die.
“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage.” ~ Lao-Tzu ~
ouch… I had to leave the computer yesterday before this discussion got going, so i’m definitely replying to this a little late, but I hope I can clear my name at least a little by saying that what I wrote is what i’ve heard, not what I believe. I thought it made some sense, but I think I completely botched the explanation; maybe I shouldn 't try to explain what I can’t identify with. And “typically convoluted”!!!.. i hate to think i was weighing the message boards down… very embarrassed… my apologies! Anyways, back to the debate.
This makes more sense than how I put it; it’s not the suffering itself, but Jesus’ supposed innnocence that makes it different from all other sufferring. And I still think the lack of inheritance of “original sin” is important… he isn’t subject to the one ‘curse’… or whatever you want to call it… that sentenced man to die. And God still let him die a painful death, killing his own son for the benefit of humanity.
So that makes him a powerful figure for Christians (as i understand!) because if a man suffers, then asks 'Why am I suffering? I don’t deserve this!’ needs only to look at the example of Christ to see that even this man, who supposedly committed no evil in the eyes of god, had to suffer and die.
I agree completely with the OP. It’s like a billionaire living in the slums for one week and then going back to his mansion after this brief experience. How is this such a big sacrifice? Talk about condescending.
How was Jesus innocent? Jesus is God. And it was God who created Original Sin. So Jesus created the crime he was being punished in order to eliminate.
The only way I can see this making any sense was that saving humanity wasn’t really the point of the whole exercise. God could have done that via a memo.
So maybe God realized that creating Original Sin and eternal damnation was a bad thing and He had been wrong. So He came down to Earth and allowed Himself to be crucified in order to punish Himself for His mistake.
Little Nemo said:
Jesus was innocent as he commited no sin. A fundamental gift of all creation is the power to choose our course of life. He was perfect, just as Adam had been. Adam chose to rebel. That “crime” as such was not the fault of Jesus or God. The ‘blame’ rested with Adam (&Eve) alone. Similarly, Christ had the power to choose his behavior and course of life. In fact, after his baptism he went into the wilderness for 40 days and after coming down was immediately accosted by Satan who made several propositions. (Matthew chapter 4) Jesus chose to keep his integrity before his God both then and throughout his life and ministry. In that respect he was different from Adam who chose to sin. In God’s fairness he lets all creation know that, while we have choices, the consequences of our choices cannot be escaped. Adam was warned what the consequence of his choice would be beforehand and he chose to rebel anyway. Jesus, as a perfect man, was the only human who could have offered himself an an *equal" propitiatiary sacrifice to redeem mankind from the condemed state that we were in. A perfect life was offered (Jesus) as a sacrifice for the perfect life (Adam/Eve) that chose to rebel. Jesus cancelled the debt we inherited by Adam’s choice. (For the sake of brevity, the scriptures cited above make that case)
With all due respect, I prefer the bible’s explanation as to the “point of the whole excercise.” God’s sense of justice required that a perfect human life be given to pay for the sins of another perfect human life(s) that sinned and condemned all mankind to death as a result. Who am I to say what is “just” to the God of the universe? If in fact that God exists, and this account is true, who has the right to say that God should have handled it differently?
God created us, and he created us with the power to choose our course of life. It’s a tremondous gift. What we do with that gift is on us, and us alone. God is no more responsible for Adam’s sin than my state senator is responsible for my speeding ticket. God makes the laws, and shares the laws with us. Further he shares with us the consequences of violating those laws. What could be more fair? The legislature of my state sets forth traffic laws and requires me to become familiar with them to get my license. As a reminder they post speed limit signs. Is my senator to blame if I speed? That’s silly! To suggest that God is responsible for my actions, and my choices assumes that, in the end, I don’t have choices. I don’t think you can make that case.
I don’t think you understand “the point of the whole excercise.”
Anduril said:
If that was the end of the story, or even the whole story it would be condescending. But there’s much more to the story. The fact is that the billionaire (using your analogy) is a slum lord to boot. Isn’t that right? I mean, it’s his universe and the sorry state of affairs on planet earth is his, right?
(I’m slipping in WAR’s jam “The World is a Ghetto” for a little mood music…)
But it’s worth putting in the proper perspective. (Little Nemo’s “point of the whole excercise”) The original condition of the earth was one of a paradise. (Gen 2:8,9) There was no talk of death, rape, war or any of the plagues that we live with. Adam had no expecation for disease or death. He had a beautiful wife and the prospect of living forever in paradise conditions. Adam (& Eve) chose to tear up the neighborhood. They became sinners and started the descent into full ghetto status by rebelling. Since then, mankind, and mankind alone, has been the reason the world is a slum. (With no small help from Satan) Even in our sinful state we are able to choose what the world we live in will look like. Look around you. The world is a pretty screwed up place and it us who are screwing it up.
Is that God’s fault?
If Jesus had come to die, spend the weekend and then head back to the suburbs, that would be a tragedy. But his sacrifice wasn’t an isolated gesture, or the end of anything. It was the beginning. The beginning of a massive neighborhood redevelopment program. The first order of business was to cancel the debt we incurred from Adam’s rebellion (Cited previously) and bring us into a relationship before God that allowed us to live in the conditions that God purposed.
And that promise, a hope for the future, was the absolute primary message in Jesus’s ministry. (Matt 6:9, 6:33) Throughout the bible there was (is) an anticipation of a new kingdom, a means for makind to get relief. The major prophets looked for it, and even the people in Christs’s time were in anticipation of the arrival of the Christ. (Isa 9:6,7, Dan 2:44, Ps 2:8,9, Isa 2:4, Ps 72:12-16, Isa 25:6 and many others)
Raindog, you’re the one who’s missing the point.
God was the one who made the rules. God established a situation making it possible for Adam to sin and declared certain actions to be sins. After Adam and Eve sinned, God decided all their descendants would be equally guilty of that sin. All of these were God’s decisions to make; presumedly nothing could have forced God to take the actions He did.
God later decided to forgive mankind for their sins. Explain why God needed to manifest as Jesus and die on the cross to accomplish this? Couldn’t God have just decided to forgive everyone without the crucifixtion? Why did God have to sacrifice Himself and who was He sacrificing Himself to?
Consider how God’s example might work in a typical American household. I, the father, announce a rule that my children have to wash the dishes every day and tell them if they don’t they’ll never be able to watch TV again. One day, the kids forget to wash the dishes so I take away the TV in the kid’s rec room.
A few weeks later, I think that I was overly harsh to punish the kids forever for something they only did wrong once. I decide to change my rule to being that the kids cannot watch the TV for a week if they forget to wash the dishes.
Now one way to handle this would be to announce the new rule and put the TV back in the rec room. Or I could choose the God/Jesus route and announce that I’m now declaring myself to be an honorary child, and that therefore I also failed to wash the dishes, and that my punishment is going to be giving up my own TV watching. But because I’m so impressed by my stepping forward to volunteer to take this punishment, I’m going to give everyone back their TV privileges.
Yes. Kind of mellodramatic if you think about it.
“Because you need saving from ignorance, let me become a retard for you for just a few days. This will magically give you knowledge. As to why I should become a retard to do that…?”
“Because you’re dying from hunger, let me starve myself for a week then eat my heart out later. You on the other hand, will still suffer, but that gesture I made should magically make up for all of it. What’s the purpose of starving myself? Your guess is as good as mine.”
Little Nemo said:
Perhaps I am missing your point. I think the bible makes the point clear from God’s POV.
Yes he did. He made the situation, but he gave Adam free will to determine what would the “situation” (namely, his life course) would turn out to be. It’s called free will.
He never said that they would be equally guilty of that sin, just that they would suffer the consequences, through heredity, of that sin. If one believes (A BIG if I know) that God exists and created us, that is indeed his right to make that decision. And, it is true that no one can force him to do anything. If your true motivation is that God doesn’t exist, or that Christ’s sacrifice didn’t happen, we’re wasting our time as we’re arguing the wrong point, and OP. For the believer, it is ackowledged that as the sovereign of the universe, he can make the rules and determine what constitutes “justice.”
For the believer, this is the point. For the sake of brevity I will not re-cite all of the bible references, but the bible makes it clear that a perfect human life had to be given as sacrifice for the sins committed by Adam. Jesus was uniquely qualified among all mankind as he was the only perfect man to walk the earth. No other human could offer himself to rectify Adam’s actions. Only a perfect man could.
He could have I suppose. But that’s his right. I am in no position to call into question God’s sense of justice or purpose. Are you? As to sacrificing “himself” I accept Jesus’s claim as to he said he was: the son of God. If that is true, (and the scrpitures supporting it are legion) he wasn’t sacrificing to himself. He was sacrificing himself to his God. But that’s for another thread, right?
With all due respect, the questions posited in your post are answered in great detail in earlier posts, using the bible as the source. Did you take the time to consider the cites? You’ve simply re-asked them in other words. If you do not believe in the bible, or God, or both, we’re wasting our time, right? There would be no common ground from which to base a discussion on.
As to your Parent/TV analogy I don’t have the time at the moment, but some of the underlying premises are’nt consistent with the biblical account. But that’s for later perhaps.
Anduril said:
Guessing would seem to be the predicate word here. Is that right?
It’s one thing to have made the intellectual investment to understand the believers POV from the bible, and then rejecting it. That would require taking the time to read the accounts in detail, and then much of the NT to understand the import Christs’s gesture had for mankind and the hope that his sacrifice opened up. (Even if ultimately one would reject it)
It’s another thing entirely to throw out posts like this one.
Oh, but I have made the “intellectual investment”. I am a former Christian, and though I am not a theology graduate, I am pretty well versed with the belief and the Biblical passages that illuminate it (I’ve studied all my life in Christian/Catholic Schools and have made it a point to converse with Theologians (my professors) about my difficulties with the faith.) I’ve rejected them nonetheless.
I “threw out” this post as a challenge in the hopes that someone can make me understand better. "It’s one thing to admit that you don’t have much of a reply. It’s another thing to entirely dismiss it by accusing me “intellectual laziness”.