Except that simultaneously is such a temporally oriented description. Like all human descriptions, it fails to completely define the nature of temporal omnipresence. I don’t think that God fails to perceive and understand our intersection with the dimensions of reality, I just don’t think that particular limit encompasses His complete reality. There are even hints of it in the peculiar tense choices in some of scripture, like “Before Abraham was, I am.” The name given to God is translated by some as “I am.”
Or, put more pragmatically, the day of the crucifixion was probably a long time subjectively, even to Jesus, because he was for those moments, entirely human. The time since then? I don’t know how God perceives time, but I think he perceives every Planck interval of it, somehow. An eternity in Hell in two days? First define eternity, and the two days, from the frame of reference of God. An eternal moment is an oxymoron to us, but to God it may have an entirely ordinary meaning. It’s just not possible to speak English, and describe time in anything but a sequence bound unidirectional frame of reference. It’s our frame of reference, so it seems entirely natural to assume it applies to everything.
Maybe I’m the one who hasn’t been clear. It appears we agree on the issue of why God chose to send Jesus to be crucified as an end. But I’m asking why He chose to send Jesus to be crucified as a means.
In other words if asked “why did God send Jesus?” someone could honestly answer “to redeem mankind.” This is true, but the next question is “why, of all the different means that God had available for redeeming mankind, did He choose this particular one?”
Raindog, you have stated (if I’m following you correctly) that God chose this means because he is just. This implies that the crucifixion was the most just choice God could have made and that was the reason He chose it. Would you agree with this?
Again, if so, this leads to more questions. If crucifixion was the most just choice, who was justice owed to and why? Did God owe justice to mankind? Did God owe justice to Himself? After all, sending an innocent man to suffer is hardly a just action by itself. It can only be just if it necessary to serve a higher purpose.
We’ve already agreed (I believe) that it was not necessary in the sense of being the only choice. So it could only have been necessary in terms of being the best choice.
But in most situations that can be thought of, if there are a number of ways to accomplish something and some of these ways require knowingly sending an innocent man to a painful death and other ways do not, the way that doesn’t require the death would be the best and most just way. So why was this situation different?
And, raindog, please be assured I’m not mocking you or your religious beliefs here. I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say on this subject.
Wrong. If I were to start a post about whether Santa Claus flies through the air at light-speed, or instead, bends the space-time fabric itself to deliver gifts all over the world in just one night, you would be quite correct to jump in and point out that the question is moot because Santa Claus’ gift-giving is just a myth.
How otherwise reasonable people can argue until they’re blue in the face about such silliness is incomprehensible to me.
Sure I Love Me, Vol. I you could argue that - and I said that would be ok:
my quote:
re-emphasis mine
But then you would have to leave the debate there. So if you assert that Santa Claus’ gift-giving is just a myth then you have no grounds on which to continue to argue about how the gift-giving takes place (since you don’t believe it does).
Yes. But that’s precisely because we are imperfect humans that we attach conditions. I can’t see why a christian-like god would. Being perfect, he would have no need for a reward, for praise, or even for faith. Being omnipotent, he wouldn’t have to atttach conditions in order to avoid bad consequences, either.
So, either such a god isn’t really perfect (he has desires he wants to be fulfilled…receiving praise in exchange for provinding for everything, for instance), or he isn’t omnipotent (for instance he had for some reason, to plant a tree, he couldn’t prevent the snake from tempting Eve…this would make sense in a dualist religion, for instance)…or, more simply the whole story is false.
Similarily, if Adam/Eve were really perfect, they couldn’t have failed, ever. If they weren’t, they necessarily would have, given enough time (this is an argument I had never considered before, by the way…there’s so much holes in christian theology that there are always some new ones to discover)
And anyway, as it’s so often stated, there’s no particular reason for one’s fault to lie on one’s descendants (and actually, it’s even stated in the bible ). Nor, as mentionned many times in this thread to decide that the only way to “clean the mess” would be the sacrifice of a human being (or a of divine being), perfect or not. Such an arbitrary decision would be god’s (except, once again, if god isn’t omnipotent, hence is “tied” by some superior rules or limited by an equally powerful being). He could as well have decided to forgive everybody by snaping his fingers, or decided that our sins could be redeemed only if people had a three days long kick-ass party in Jerusalem with Jesus.
Indeed, we don’t speak the same language. I guess that to understand us you should try to perceive god’s behavior as you would a mere human’s behavior.
Let’s assume someone knock at your door and state : “you know, your great aunt Sally defaulted me 30 years ago” (that would be the original sin). “You’re responsible for it since you’re one of her relatives” (that would be the original seemed falling on our shoulders). Then he proceeds to punch you in the nose (that would be our suffering in this imperfect world) and add : “I intented too to torch your house, since it appears to me to be the correct retribution for my loss” (that would be hell, the punishment for sinful mankind). “But I changed my mind and instead I’m going to cut off my little finger” (that would be Jesus’ sacrifice). Then he proceeds to actually cut it and walks away.
Obviously, you would think : “this man is crazy”
The problem is : you thing that it’s not your call to decide whether his actions are just or not. You quote the bible, which state that god is always right, and that we can’t question his motives. You assume that whatever he decides to be the right thing is actually the right thing.
On the other hand we look at god in the way you would look at this weird guy in my example. We just can’t conceive how his actions could make sense or be considered “just”. Hence, we deduce that either the guy/ god is nuts or unjust, either the story has been made up.
What I mean is that it’s not because we assume as a basis that god doesn’t exist that we can’t buy/ make sense of the story, it’s because we can’t buy/ make sense of the story that we believe that god doesn’t exist (or if he does, isn’t a just god).
You, on the other hand, assume that god being perfect, whatever he does (deciding that the sacrifice of a perfect human being is needed, for instance) is by definition just, even if we can’t understand it. The fact it’s written in the bible isn’t going to convince us, as long as we don’t make this assumption ourselves. If you try to examine god’s action in the same way you would for a fellow human being, as we do, you would probably understand our point of view.
Teling us : “I know the guy who came to your house and wanted to torch it bur cut his little finger instead, and he’s always right, so he must had some good reason to do so” he’s going to convince us. And similarily, telling us “god is by definition just”, won’t, either. In both case, we’re considering the actions and then state : “this guy is nuts/ god isn’t in his right mind or doesn’t exist”. Not believing in god is the consequence of our judgement, not the other way around.
Indeed, then, it would be. But still, the original point stand. many humans in history made such sacrifices (or even worst) without this 100% certainty, and even some of them despite being convinced that there wouldn’t any kind of “after”, believing that they would die in pain, and without any expectation for themselves.
Though I’m not godbear : sure, but you must admit that there’s so much different interpretations within christianism that we can’t adress them all with the same arguments in the same posts. And there are definitely some people on this board whose beliefs are adressed by godbear’s statement.
but it’s not in our nature, be it because we’re merely greedy apes without soul or because we’re tainted by the original sin.
I would like to reply to this post from an rational POV, with no bias in favor or against the assertions made by clairobscur. In particular, I take no position on the issues (for the purpose of this post) in this thread. For that matter I would gladly take up support of clairobscur’s points and simply ask that he support them. I would like to simply address the quality of the intellectual argument.
clairobscur said:
The fact that you “can’t see why” doesn’t make the potential for it to be true any less possible. That’s an intellectually lazy statement. (sorry)
The presumptuousness of your statements are stunning. Please support that God exists,(or that he doesn’t…)but in case he does, you are in a position to determine what his needs would be, and whether he would require conditions etc. Once you’ve establised his existence, support why God couldn’t or wouldn’t attach conditions. (other than “I can’t see why”)
You’ve simply given us your reasonings and stated them as fact. Isn’t that right?
Please support this with objective facts, not your own reasonings/logic. Keep in mind that even the doe eyed, slack jawed bible believers lurking here will see right through another post like this one.
Once again, you’ve assumed that if God has requirements (I’ve never used the word ‘desire’) that he must be, by definition, imperfect. Please support the assertion that requirements=imperfection.
Also, please support that God couldn’t prevent the snake. The word is couldn’t, not didn’t, or wouldn’t. You’d really help us body slam a few literalists if you use their own handbook, the bible. That’ll get 'em going.
I’m guessing that you’re a philosopher as well. Let us know if you are a sentient free moral agent, capable of free will and the ability to make concious choices as to your life course. Let us know if you believe in predestination.
More of the same…
This post is only partly tongue in cheek. My point, in case it is not readily apparent, is that from a purely rational POV your arguments are weak and can’t be supported no matter what side of the table you’re on.
Qualifying statement: I’ve had a sense that we’ve been talking about the wrong issue; that there wasn’t sufficient common ground between us and we’re wasting our time here. I still think we’re talking about the wrong issue. I have a sense that you’re trying to lead me to some realization rather than going directly there. I don’t want to anticipate where you’re headed (if indeed you are) but I have a sense of wanting to ask, “What’s really on your mind?”
If you are an atheist, or simply don’t believe a word of the account, and don’t trust the bible we’re going to end up in an impasse. That will likely end up in the question and/or validity of one’s faith. That is a fool’s game. I’ve seen threads like “The Authority of the Bible” and I can’t help but think that the very best that will come out of that is a stalemate. At worst, (and the most likely scenario…)some name calling and general sniping and left handed insults. From a purely intellectual perspective it’s an excercise in futility. So, let’s not waste time, otay? End of qualifying statement.
So, what’s really on your mind? ;- 0
As to your question, I offer this: Your question, as I perceive it, asks for a more global answer than the specific reasons why Jesus died. That’s a reasonable thing I guess. When my kids were 7 years old they would ask “why” and with each progressive answer would reply, “but why?” The question of “why” was predicated on the previous answer and forced a more and more global answer. At some point, the answer to a 7 year old, is “just because.” As to your question, I think the bible gives some insight as to the answer. (to your satisfaction remains to be seen, right?) But, at some point there is no answer to the question of “why.” If more “whys” are coming, and if really the issue to you is “faith”, I can tell you that the answer ultimately will not be, “just because”, but “That is unknowable to us, either because God chose us to not know it, or it is not necessary for us to know it to enjoy a relationship with God. It must remain an article of faith.” To the non-believer of course, that’s sounds just like “just because.”
Forgive me for anticipating what’s on your mind here, but if you’re looking to pick a fight over the issue of faith, save the bandwidth. I’m not the guy for that discussion. I will say this and only this about my opinion about such things. Among believers and non-believers there are people who will believe almost anything, often on the flimsiest of information. If one is to believe that the earth is flat, who am I to say that their faith is wrong? Personally though, I have always had more respect for a persons beliefs who has taken the time to fully research what they believe. But I have found many people (most actually) who base their beliefs on almost anything. I’ve met Christians who couldn’t tell the difference between the bible and the Magna Carta and ascribed quotes to Jesus that came from Shakespere, or Abraham Lincoln. Conversely,I’ve known (on this board as well) those who assail the bible having not read it, or having only the faintest idea as to what is says. They are just as clueless, but often more dismissive, derisive and sarcastic. This may earn me some replies with claims of hubris, or the dreaded “literalist!” So be it. But, if we’re talking about the death of Christ, and you believe in (the Christian) God, it seems painfully obvious to me that you would use the bible as the starting point of the discussion. I am at a complete loss as to the inane taunts like "Fundie! or “Literalist!” if someone dares to refer to the bible in a discussion* about the bible!* I mean, if we were talking about, say…the separation of church and state, would it be unreasonable that we at least *casually *reference the constitution without being called a card carrying Michigan Militia member “you’ll take my gun from my cold dead fingers” radical?
So…If you believe in God, and the bible, you will earn my enduring respect and respect for your argument if you at least start with the bible for the basis of your reasoning. I’ll even defend you when the first cry of “Fundie” comes flying. ;- ) OTOH, if you have no belief whatsoever you and I will end up in a rather unsatisfying stalemate. If so, let’s mosey on over to another tread and play there, and not waste the bandwidth, ok?
Ok…rant is over…
Back to the question…
As to the means…The bible doesn’t answer the question in those terms, but to appreciate the value of Christ’s death one has to spend time with the 3½ years he walked the earth in his ministry. That love was a motivation is apparent. (I’ll save the cites for another time) His ministry also taught the value of relying on God and the benefit of keeping one’s integrity in the face of temptation and hostility. A primary part of the message is God’s Kingdom. It is clear that God values our free will (I have cites if needed) and he could have sent a booming voice or some other apparent manifestation of his existence. But consitently Christ implored humans to excercise faith. The means was his own Son, sent in human form to encourage us to choose to have a relationship with him and his father. It’s the whole good vs evil thing that is now often just a parody. It’s the message that we are free moral agents, and that our reltionship with God requires effort on our part; that God isn’t going to show up and do stupid pet tricks to prove he exists. It’s the reality that we have to look at all the facts and come to our own conclusion as to his existence and lay down all our chips and either develop faith and appreciation in him, or; join a message board and let the world know that people who believe in God are slack jawed idiots from the dark ages. Either way, you gotts pick a horse and lay down your 2 bucks.
I don’t think it necessarily implies it is the best choice, although it is a logical thing to believe. It is apparent from the biblical account it is the one he chose, and that it was consistent with his sense of Justice.
Why is Justice owed? I mean, as humans we think of justice being executed, or people being brought to justice, or injustices happening. We may owe God certain things that produce justice or that are ‘just.’ If one is to believe in God, and that God created the universe and us and all that jazz, then one must accept that it is God ultimately has the right, and only him, to decide what is “just.” He would certainly have the right to enforce and maintain his sense of Justice, right? Even if that justice is for his own edification, he would still have that ability, right? If you consider that being “owed”, well ok…
Now it may, or not be, “just” to send an innocent man to die for “justice.” I suppose if there were a “greater good”, or “higher purpose” as you noted, even an innocent could be sent to die. But we’re talking about God’s sense of justice, not ours. I’m not saying this as a believer! What I’m saying is that, from an intellectual POV, if one accepts that God exists, it is presumptuous in the extreme to say that we know better than him, or to call into question the “wisdom” or “justice” of his decisions. It is apparent that you feel “sending an innocent man to suffer” is unjust. Must it be unjust for God because** Little Nemo** thinks it is?
In the, ‘while we’re at it’ department… Jesus was a perfect man. He wasn’t “sent.” He “went.” Even then, that’s not the point. If he was drug kicking and screaming to his crucifixition it is still not my place to say that “God is wrong” and that I’m somehow wiser. But it remains a fact that Jesus came of his own free will. Because of comments like this, I am left thinking that you’ve haven’t read the accounts in detail, or considered them contextually.
Once again, it was not “necessary” in as much as God is not constrained towards his purposes. He has choices available to him. It is logical that it was the best choice, but necessarilly so. You and I don’t know that, and we’re not in a position to dictate what is “necessary”.
One again, there are two salient points here. It is painfully apparent that you haven’t read the accounts, in detail, and contextually. The answers are there. When I say “contextually”, I’m not saying breezing through a few cites I throw up here, or what you can google up. (Or what you remember from school) What I am saying is that Christ’s death is the culmination of a process that started centuries earlier. Every major prophet going back centuries spoke of the Messiah. When Jesus was alive and was met by a woman at a well she went back and said to her townfolk, “Is this perhaps the Christ?” Christ, (pun intended!) modern day Judaism recognizes Jesus as a prophet and they are still waiting for the Christ! John the Baptist, while in prison sent his attendents and asked this powerful question: “Are you the Christ or should we expect another?” Jesus didn’t just show up for a weekend crucifixion and head home to heaven. He spent 3½ years in which time he spoke powerfully about his mission and purposes.
The second thing that is apparent is that all your objections are not about the facts per se, but that you find them unreasonable, illogical perhaps or unjust. It’s one thing to say God doesn’t exist. Cool! But it’s another thing to say you believe in the (Christisn) God and in the same breath say you disagree with him, find fault with his decisions and reject the bible for some ideas you’ve put together that make more sense for you.
Ultimately, what I would hope for you is that you would take the time to read the bible daily, and, after reading the whole accounts in their full contextual detail, decise for yourself what the truth is. Even if you come to the conclusion that it’s all hogwash you’ll have a better appreciation as to what other Christians believe.
**
I appreciate that. Nor do I wish to offend you in any way. I apologize if this post lacks some mental clarity. I started yesterday and finished today and seems a little disjointed. Oh well…
Raindog, as I set before I have no ulterior motive behind my questions and I’m not looking to set you up. I do think you’re making more presumptions about me that any evidence here would support but it’s no great matter. I also understand that some people are hostile towards devout Christians so I understand you may be seaking from past unpleasant experiences (or current ones considering some of the posts in this thread).
I also would like to say that I am not presuming to judge God’s actions, I’m trying to understand them. For me to say that His actions appear unjust is a case of my asking for an explantion of their justice not to declare that if I don’t understand something it must be wrong.
I offered one possible explanation earlier (that God might have been acknowledging that He had committed an error and should atone for it). I certainly don’t feel that because I said this it must be true. You offered a different explanation, which if I understand it, was that God chose to reddem mankind via the crucifxion because it was a subtle enough means that it would not suppress free will by too overt a manifestation of divine power. It’s an intriguing idea which I hadn’t considered before. (Ironically I just saw a similar suggestion made about God on an episode of Futurama of all places.) However, it’s late and I have to get up in the morning so I’ll take a day or so to consider this before posting my thoughts on the subject. By the same token, I’ll hold off on offering any new comments on the topics of faith or justice.
I’m no theologian, nor am I a practicing Chrisitian, but here’s my understanding on this.
Assuming that there is a God (as described by Christian beliefs) then morality could be described as that which is “like God” and immorality is that which is unlike God.
As such, living a moral life is an attempt to be “like God.” A tall order, not the least of which because humans are not divine. In the Christian mythology (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way) the human incarnation of God becomes a moral role-model of sorts. He is an example of how a truly Godly (and thus, truly moral, following the previous definition of morality) man should act.
Mankind is called by God not to sin, but no man can ever actually do this, after all, as Lord Henry in The Picture of Dorian Gray states:
“The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it,” - and I doubt that any of us would deny that. The deck seems rather stacked against any man ever becoming like God.
But God cannot “relate” so to speak, to this particular blight of Man- as God cannot be tempted into immortality- to be immoral is to be “unlike God.” The only way for God to be tempted- that is, for God to empathize with Man so to speak, is for God to become a man.
In that light, Jesus becomes a curious fellow. As a (presumably) fully human being who (presumably) never yielded to temptation, we can only begin to imagine the intense internal struggle that he must have experienced.
So Jesus could be seen as God’s way of showing Mankind how to live- As a man, we can relate to Jesus’ struggle against sin, but as a God He was able to succeed in that struggle.
But that’s just this particular heathen’s take on the issue, I’m likely completely off the mark. But from my understanding, Jesus is an image of the Christian God that Mankind can relate to and therefore emulate (things we could not do with a fully divine God-- and things we could not do if God had chosen a different way of redeeming mankind)
I have selflessly given an entire lifetime for our cause, but it is only the beginning of FOREVER…FOR ALL. Time is a concept we need more of . 25 hour days? Stranger things have happened. All I ever wanted was to be like everyone else. But, now I realize. I’m a wee bit different. One day I found the Lord, and that wasn’t all I found…
I love you all.
If it’s any comfort after our back and forth in another thread, that was what I was taught in the RCC, too.
OTOH, I must agree with our pal (though I’ve not been on my best behavior with HIM, either. I’m rough on my friends and ignore my enemies, except when i ignore my friends, too) *Qadgop in that, regardless the level of pain experienced that one day, it is only an infinitesimal part of God’s existence. Though, existing outside of time as He does (though, I guess, not really to the LDSers), that day would be as major a part of His consciousness as He lets it.
I don’t think he suffered more then anyone else who suffered such a similiar fate–but I don’t think that matters. The Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday services at my (Episcopal) Church focused on the resurection, which is a joyous event. They were uplifting celebrations of hope for eternal life (Good Friday, Maundy Thursday, etc.–less so. ) I think the point of Easter is the last 30 seconds of “The Passion,” not the preceeding 2-hour gore-fest. Many die horrible deaths; only one showed us how to make death not horrible.
Sorry, I’m a Gemini and one of our qualities is supposed to be the ability, if not annoying likelihood, of restarting a conversation where it left off, no matter how long it’s been since everybody else thought it ended.
OTOH, I thought the OP raised interesting points that can bear continued discussion.
[hijack] Qadgop the Mercotan, sorry to be a pest, But I did a search for your plane crash thread. Aside from having my reading set aside for the afternoon, I was unable to find it. Could ya help a curious guy out?
[/hijack]
**
