Just looking for a quick answer here about
The choice to eat or not eat the apple was a mugs game in my view. Adam/Eve would live forever and so experience an infinite number of opportunities to choose to eat the apple. If God had no intention of Adam/Eve falling why provide an infinite number of opportunities for them to fail? And fail they would since they had free will in this matter. They could not help but choose to eat the apple at least once.
Anduril said:
I didn’t mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did. I am of the philosphical bent that words themselves have no inherent meaning, and that we (humans) attach meaning to them. Words on a computer screen are particularly difficult to attach meaning to as we lose voice inflection, facial expressions and body language. That having been said, the meaning I that attached to your words were indeed intellectual laziness and someone who was ill-informed. (believer or not) You have clarified what you mean(t). And, as I said, I apologize if it offended you.
It is true that I offered not much in the way of a reply. However, your post is essentially the same question/assertion that others have made, including the OP. There is nothing that I could say, or in response to your post, that I haven’t said already. In the end, I believe that this is a matter of personal faith. You and I can read the same material and come to very different conclusions as to the meaning of it all. I am not a theologian, nor do I think that anyone here can speak for God or assume that they have the answers. It is a personal matter between a person and God. (and how they perceive him to be) My endeavor was simply to make reference to what the bible has to say on the matter. If a believer, or non-believer, chooses to read the accounts and reject them that’s their right.
In fact, they can reject it without ever having read the account!
Grey said:
Yes, the opportunity to rebel would always be present. If you believe in free will (and there are complete schools of philosophers who believe that free will is an illusion) than it is true that Adam & Eve could at any time choose to be disobedient and suffer the consequences that had been outlined.
That’s an excellent question. God provided a paradise for them to live in. They were perfect, so the inclination was towards perfection; something we as imperfect cannot directly relate to. All of their needs were met, and so the issue of eating from the tree for sustenence was not an issue. Is it reasonable, given all they were provided, that God would establish rules that they must live by? Is it reasonable that God would ask of them, that as a measure of their faith and appreciation, to, on an ongoing basis, display obedience? Hey, even as imperfect humans we routinely extend benefits in both our business and family lives that have conditions attached to them. It is common, even accepted, that for the benefits to continue the underlying commitments must be maintained. (Compare Deu. 11:1 and 1 John 5:3)
Why would their failure be a foregone conclusion? They could, in fact, choose to not eat from the tree. Keep in mind, they were perfect and their inclinations were oriented towards perfection. Certainly they could help it. And that is a profound lesson from Christs’s life and sacrifice. Adam and Eve had it made, no? What was asked of them was fairly simple in relative terms. Jesus, OTOH, was in spiritually hostile enviornment and yet kept his integrity in the most trying of circumstances. It wasn’t just his crucifixion that we learn from. It’s that we can maintain our integrity in the face of difficult choices. His life was a case study on the value of staying close to God and making the right choices.
OK. Since we’re taking the whole Genesis account literally, how difficult would it be to place that tree elsewhere? It just seems so capricious, to say the least. Do you have another way of looking at this without immediately appealing to mystery? The way some people propound their beliefs, it seems that the road to the crucifixion is paved with this same caprice and God’s sense of the dramatic. i.e. Original Sin, Jesus assuming human form, Jesus Crucified for Our Sins, etc.
There’s nothing wrong in believing this, though we shouldn’t be surprised if there’s some incredulity. On second thought, let’s just appeal to mystery and leave it at that.
Anduril said:
If one were to believe in the creator, the issue of where he puts the tree is elementary. He puts where he wishes. I must admit I’m struggling with your posts. This question seems to be insincere at best, inane at worst.
You mean the position of the tree? (?) He apparently put the tree in the garden, and it had obviously some importance for Adam and Eve. But that’s been covered in this thread, right?
I haven’t appealed to mystery in this thread. Not once. Not even indirectly. In fact, I’ve tried to use the bible as the source to support the biblical explanation of Christs’s death. (Ironic, heh?) Any person is free to intrepet those accounts in any way they choose. I find little mystery in it myself. I think that the biblical account has tremondous clarity and continuity. It’s worth noting that the continuity is remarkable given the time it spans; from the prophets who foretold of Christs’s arrival through his death and even the writings after his death that spoke of the meaning of his death and purpose of it all. My intent was not to share my personal views (although those are apparent) but rather to show what the bible has to say on the matter. You are free to attach any meaning you wish, or mystery. My experience has been that the people who are most likely to say it’s all a mystery haven’t read the accounts or have a passing familiarity at best. That’s just my observation. YMMV.
I can find absolutely no caprice in the biblical account of Christ’s death. None. The issue of the tree is tangentially related to the OP as Jesus’s death was necessary as a response to Adam’s choices, and the impact it had on mankind. (…struggling at the use of the word caprice…) The whole chain of events were (are) dramatic. If they are too dramatic to be believable for you, cool. I don’t know how “some people” propound their beliefs. I simply know my own. My response was to the OP, which asked “What makes God as Man experiencing pain and death with resurrection following shortly after such a transforming and redeeming experience for so many Christians? Why is it seen by them as such a sacrifice?”
I simply offered a biblical perspective.
You’re right there’s nothing wrong in believing this. And, incredulity is certainly pervasive. If you need to appeal to mystery and leave it at that, that’s OK too. I haven’t have I?
This has been interesting reading. The apparent paradoxes are, I believe, satisfactorily explained in this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Starting with the premise that Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human, it follows that the divine Christ was incapable of suffering. It was the human Jesus that suffered and it was the divine Trinity that accepted this sacrifice.
Interesting link, boblibdem. Many interesting discussions and points all around.
But I must say none of it really convinces me. Or moves me to a level of pity or compassion or even awe any greater than that which I feel for any mere mortal who suffers such a terrible fate. But that’s just me.
I’ll certainly continue to read this and related threads with interest.
Raindog, you seem to be focusing on the minor issues and avoiding the big ones. So let me reduce what my previous posts to a single question: Could God have redeemed mankind without the crucifixion and if so why did He choose not to?
Ummm… no you didn’t. He can’t suffer anymore… he’s been dead a long time.
Ok, I’ll try.
The first part of your question…
In post #58 of this thread you asked, " Couldn’t God have just decided to forgive everyone without the crucifixtion? " I answered, “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?” Isn’t that the same question you’re offering here, and didn’t I answer it? I don’t what more I can say. **In post #48 **of this post I answered in much greater detail. I hate to waste the bandwidth, but here’s a quote:
*"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)"*
The issue of God’s choice to require that a perfect life be given as a corresponding “ransom” to release mankind from the endemic effects of Adamic sin were also touched upon in** posts #54** with this quote: *"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)" and this in post #58: “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.”
Have I not answered the question? Once again, could God have handled it without the crucifixion? Yep, no doubt. He is the arbiter as what constitutes justice and he is not subject to anyone or any law. But the biblical account makes it clear that he did just that. Who am I to say that it was unneccessary, or senseless? (1 Tim 2:5,6, John 3:16,)
and the second part of your question…
This too has been answered. The posts in this thread have dealt in detail what the bible has to say on the matter. The bible clearly says that one of God’s foremost qualities is Justice. (Ps 33:5, Deut 32:4, Jer 9:24) Read Rom 3:21-26 He certainly has the right to determine what is appropriate justice and what is not. I’m struggling to say this another way. You and I may not agree, but it’s his universe. He chose what he chose. It’s his call to make.
I have a sense that we’re not talking the same language. If the real issue for you is that you don’t believe in God, or don’t believe in Christ, or the bible, or the veracity of the bible, or… then we’re wasting our time as we’re discussing the wrong issue. I mean we’re talking about the death and sacrifice of Christ and if you don’t believe the bible there is nothing that I can offer (or anyone else) that will be satisfactory to you. I have a very strong sense that you did not read any of the cites offered in this thread from the bible. (I may be wrong but I doubt it) If you had, I don’t think you’d be back asking the same questions again. (whether you believed them or not)
As I’ve said, ad nauseum, my endeavor was to share what the bible has to say on the matter. If you won’t read the accounts I can’t force you. But even if you don’t, or won’t, believe in the value of Christ’s sacrifice reading them will give you a clearer understanding as to what the Bible’s perspective is.
I agree with the Raindog on this point. As I stated in my first post, unless one already accepts the general Christian world-view and unless someone already values the overarching Christian narrative then Christ’s death and resurrection will mean little to them. If one does not accept the Christain world-view and general Christian narrative and myth then arguing theological and dogmatic specifics in the milleu of Christianity is pointless. That seems to be what is going on in this thread.
Raindog and Humpty, you’re both putting yourself in a hubristic position. Neither of you (I assume) had a direct hand in writing the Bible. Just because people have different interpretations of the Bible than you do does not mean they are ignorant of what it says or that they don’t believe what it says.
The Biblical cites you gave (and which I have read and read again) all describe what God did. They do not offer a deeper explanation of why God did what He did.
It seems your posts boil down to this:
To paraphrase, you have no idea why He did it but you assume He must have had a good reason. Fair enough, but I think the reason is as important as the action. And I think it’s as important to comprehend the Bible as it is to parrot it.
I offered a possible explanation in a previous post without declaring it was dogma. I can think of at least two other possibilities that would also expalin God’s decision although I consider both less likely. So at moment, on the subject of trying to understand God, I guess I’m 3-0 in this thread.
So, let’s not discuss this because if you even doubt a certain interpretation, then you do not accept the entire Christian world-view. Okay, then. 
Okay, that was a stupid reply. Let me rephrase. Are you saying that we shouldn’t discuss it because those who accept the Christian world-view should have no room for any doubt or alternative viewpoint?
The crucifixion story always reminds me of a game of Horse.
As kids, my brother and I had to institute a fairly rigorous “new shot” procedure (the shot had to be announced, in detail, before it was taken) so that we wouldn’t cheat. You know how you are dribbling the ball up from the right side, trip, fall, the ball bounces off your head, flies through the air, ricochets off the garage roof, and then goes through the hoop, and then you claim that the other person has to do it the same way because you “meant to do that”?
Well, that pretty much sums up my opinion of the crucifixion story.
No, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. In fact even among Christians the meaning and reasons behind Christ’s death and resurrection are in great debate. However, much of the debate in this thread is not on the subject. Here is a list of some of the responses to the OP in this thread:
These answers, while they can inspire spirited debates on their own, should not be part of any debate on the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection because they assume the event itself either to have not happened or they approach it out of context. I apologize if I clumped all of the posts here into that category in that many posts on several sides of this issue are on the right track.
However I stand by my original statement. Every issue must be debated in context. It is a different debate on whether or not Christ existed, died, and resurrected, whether or not sin exists, whether or not there exists a personal God, whether or not sin exists, etc. I would liken it to trying to argue for the scientific evidence of biological evolution with someone who dismisses science as invalid. Without coming to a consensus on the more basic issue of science vs. other types of thought neither party could even begin to discuss the specifics of the scientific evidence at hand with any satisfaction.
Or, an exapmle I like even better (since in my opinion the Christian story is best understood as a narrative): Suppose you wanted to argue that a part of Frodo had actually turned permanently evil as a result of his contact with the One Ring in the LOTR. Would you consider having this argument with someone who responded by saying that there is no such thing as Hobbits and that there is no such place as Middle Earth? Certain basic assumptions must be met in a debate before it can continue.
If you argue that sin doesn’t exist then it is pointless to go on to an argument about what was Christ’s role in defeating sin (something which you don’t believe exists). So if you make that arguement (and the others listed above) then you have to leave the debate there because in order to find signifigance in Christ’s story you would have to assume something that you are not willing to assume.
BTW “you” is used as a generic pronoun here, I am not referring to your beliefs specifically Anduril.
Up to a point, my lord. I grant that one must have certain common assumptions in common to have a useful discussion, but given that Jesus’s gooey death is a major selling point in Christian evangelism–look at how many churches used The Passion of the Christ as a sales tool–non-believers have a right to weigh in on the conversation.
Assuming the Gospel stories are accurate, so what? Christians go on about Jesus’s suffering and the pain as if he were the only person who was ever crucified, but the truth is that the Romans commonly used crucifixion to execute provincials. Moreover, Jesus got off easy–he was only on the cross for a mere three hours whereas most folks who were crucified took 12 hours or more to expire, sometimes lasting as long as three days before death. In addition, unlike other crucifixees, Jesus came back to life after a day and a half in the tomb.
Now, of course Christians will then dwell on the metaphysical aspects of the Crucifixion–“He was cut off from God”; “He bore the whole weight of all humanity’s sins”–again I say, so what? No matter what Jesus may have suffered spiritually, it, too, was of finite duration.
Jesus gave up nothing and lost nothing. Besides, what’s a little bit of suffering to a god? Other deities have suffered lots worse. Odin only has one eye. Hephaestos is lame in one leg AND his wife, Venus, cheats on him. Osiris was killed and dismembered. Then he was resurrected by his wife, Isis, who found all the pieces of his body except the genitals, which were eaten by a fish. How would you like to spend eternity dickless? THAT’s suffering!
Throwing hands up…
Little Nemo said:
I don’t mean to offend you. Nor, did I or HumptysHamhole infer that you, or anyone else, is ignorant.
[qoute]The Biblical cites you gave (and which I have read and read again) all describe what God did. They do not offer a deeper explanation of why God did what He did.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to say about this. I’ve already been so redundant about this that is pains me to cut and paste one more word. And it will do none of us any good to post more if those biblical explanations aren’t compelling enough. The cites, from the bible, offer not just the actual events surrounding the death of Christ (what he did) but the reasons he did them and the significance it had for mankind. (why he did it) I’ll bet there’s something along the lines of 40 cites, well more than half dealing with the question of why they did the things they did.
That is patently absurd. The actual events are indeed less significant, in relative terms, than the question as to why they did what they did, especially in terms of the impact and hope it had for mankind. But I’ve covered the question of why ad nauseum! Perhaps I’ve done a poor job of it. But let me assure you that Christ didn’t die in a Roman version of a drive by. His arrival was foretold in the bible centuries in advance, including his death. He himself made it clear that he would be killed, and the purpose. (why) The later bible writers, principley Paul, covered the question as to why in exhaustive detail.
I want to believe that you’re kidding here, and I don’t want to be derisive. But are you infering that anyone should believe your explanations, or in the alternative, “two other possibilities” that you “think”, might explain God’s decision and they are more authoritative than the bible’s explanations? Do you believe that I have done a poor job of putting forward the bible’s explantion of both the “what” and “why” surrounding Christ’s death, or; do you believe that the bible itself is lacking in that regard? In other words, do you find the message lacking,(the bible) or me as a messenger? (I may be in fact be a poor messenger) If it’s me, wouldn’t you have a responsibility to correct me and direct the lurkers here to the correct answers from the bible? The fact is that the bible is far from silent on the matter. OTOH, if you are unwilling, (you’ve made it clear that you are versed in the bible and have read it, so “unable” is not an issue) to share the correct answer from the bible I can only assume that you find the bible’s explantion lacking or that yours is more compelling.
Talk about hubris!
gobear brings it into clear focus:
It doesn’t get any clearer than that, does it?
So Jesus is like the Wormhole Aliens on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, who exist at all points in time simultaneously? (I think Libertarian also feels this way.)