The scouting reports say you’re a sucker for the fastball.
When it comes to accepting or rejecting a religious philosphy, that philopsophy is going to have to accord with my own conscience because, ultimately, my conscience is the only moral compass I can rely on.
Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking that conforming to a perception of “God’s” morality is not still an autocratic moral choice on your part.
I don’t know what you mean by “handicapping” but I do insist that God be good instead of evil and I will reject what I see as evil.
I DID cite the Bible. Luke 10. I also referenced the Parable of the sheep and the Goats. It is not necessary to cite Bible passages for everything I’m saying because we are speaking in generalities about doctrines that everyone is already familiar with.
As to Diogenes’s question and the definition of sin, the bible refers to two types of sin. The first is the sin that we are all born with;
[/quote]
What does it mean to be “born with sin?” Do we have a “sin” gene? And if we’re born with it, how can we be blamed for it?
the sin we inherit. (Rom 5:12)
[/quote]
Romans 5:12 says nothing about “inherited” sin, it just says that all men sin and sin causes death. I reject both of those sentiments out of hand,
How is one supposed to know what counts as “sin” and what doesn’t?
Why does sin have to be horribly and eternally punished?
Says who? Isn’t this just saying that might makes right?
And why couldn’t he “reconcile” us WITHOUT a crucifixion? Why can’t he just cleanse of our “imperfections” by snapping his fingers? Why not get rid of Hell and just let everybody into Heaven with no questions asked?
There was no Adam and Eve and the “Devil” can’t do anything God doesn’t want him to do. If Satan exists, he exists by the will of God. If God doesn’t like the Devil he can disappear him out of existence any time he feels like it. Why doesn’t he?
I’m not going to wade through these verses because I don’t care. I’m not asking IF your God punishes petty “sins” with eternal torture, I’m asking WHY?
Sorry. That’s not an acceptable answer. “Because God says so” just doesn’t cut it with me. If God cannot conform to MY sense of what is right then I have no use for him.
And the question is WHY? What does God get out of people killing animals?
The truth is that animal sacrifice is rooted in extremely early and primitive human perceptions that they needed to literally feed the gods to curry their favor. It’s patently absurd.
I still fail to grasp why I owe any debt but more than that, I fail to grasp how a blood sacrifice is required to pay it. Why couldn’t God just let it go, you know?
This is sheer nonsense. There was no Adam and Eve, “inherited sin” makes no sense whatever and no sacrifice is required fot an all powerful God to forgive anybody he wants
None of this would be any trick if was God. I’m not impressed.
It sure is.
I agree. There are far better reasons to reject the account of Noah than that.
I prefer to call myself agnostic.
But even the traditional definitions ascribe one limitation to him. He must be good.
Then why doesn’t he?
It is my comtention that the requirements you ascribe to him are not remotely righteous.
Why not?
Defining right and wrong as being the arbitrary defintions of God and saying they’re right or wrong because God says so is the same as saying those words have no meaning.
I strive to good without any fear of consequences or expectation of reward. How do you explain that? If you’re just being good because you want to go to Heaven, you’re not really being good.
This is exactly what gobear meant when he talked about Christians who think that obedience to power is a virtue.
Might does not make right. If God cannot be good, then I choose good over God.
You are mistaken in this perception. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you.
What makes you think I want to gain faith? I have no desire or use for faith. I much prefer knowledge.
And spare me the sanctimonious pronouncements about my Biblical knowledge. My background is in criticism, not theology. It’s a different kind of Biblical knowledge than what you seem to be accustomed to. To be honest with you, I think you often show a very naive understanding of your own scripture. You seem to think that if someone has a different interpretation than you, that the other person shows a lack of knowledge. I don’t accept your theological readings and you don’t accept my critical ones. No biggie. But anytime you want to show me how I’m factually wrong in anything I say about the Bible, feel free.
Well, I still think god loses and gains nothing out of the endeavour. Anything that’s possible can be created at any time. Certainly God may make choices, no doubt about it. However, I think all the possibilities are God making his choices. So in a way Jesus would be God, but there is nothing inherently unique about being God, we all are. That lesson learned we move beyond that and ask “What is God?” The lesson I learn from this is that Jesus got smacked down by God for claiming to be something he wasn’t, but I don’t think it was because he wasn’t God. but because he had some doubt somewhere in his soul, and therefore wasn’t, whether that is free will or predestination, it doesn’t really matter because the result was what it was.
My personal feeling, is I like to prescribe the Heart Chakra of the species as a whole to Jesus. There is much Heart metaphor rife in the NT, that’s clear to everyone. So our will is a rising of the emotion of the macro, we have our own feelings and our feelings are also governed by the feelings of others to a certain degree. So if the emotional feeling of the whole were to rend the heart in some way it would manifest as a Heart Attack, and I think that that’s what the Crucifixion was, a manifestation of that spiritual heart attack. He is a metaphor of the absorption of the pain of something that could have wiped out much of mankind.
Who knows, the Hindus believe that Shiva lives in the Himalayas, perhaps he hangs out with Jesus and Buddha from time to time, and they are still alive walking the Earth.
Erek
It seems to me that it would only cement ours status as free moral agents if the punishment/reward system was removed. If you have nothing to gain by being good, then being good is much more meaningful.
4.How could eternal torture (or if you’d prefer, eternal separation from God) ever be rationalized as “justice?” There’s nothing just about it.
[/QUOTE]
Without getting into a debate over if the goal of hell is actually supposed to be to torture or punish, I have to say that whether this concept of hell is “just” or not is a matter of opinion. I say this as I have found that many people believe in heaven and hell primarily BECAUSE they want to believe that there IS some form of “divine justice.” Whether they are right or wrong, and the foundations of these beliefs is a different issue.
REDEMPTION, n. Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it.
– Ambrose Bierce
I don’t understand what you think “the change of awareness” was if you aren’t aware of the christine tenet that they gained knowledge of good and evil from the tree of knowledge. If you are not clear, that is the tree the fruit is from that they were not supposed to eat, but they did, which christianity tells us resulted in the orginal sin.
That Adam and Eve learning right from wrong after eating from the “Tree of Knowledge” is actually fairly common and basic christian tenet. See a basic definition of the “tree of knowledge”. I mean come on, the full name of the tree that the fruit came from is “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
God clearly refers to the tree as “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2:17. Would you not assume then that you gain knowledge of good and evil by eating from it? The serpent goes even further in Genesis
This should provide you the basic information you seek.
Most of the commentary about the “tree of knowledge” described in Genesis, if one takes it in a literal sense, is about how this is how humans gained awareness of good and evil/right and wrong(aka sin). That is the knowledge that they gained from the “tree of knowledge.” Many christians do also take it figuretively. This story is believed to be about the loss of innocence of mankind, and gaining the knowledge of good and evil. The story is interpreted different ways by different faiths, but that is still the basic lesson most faiths walk away with.
Just adding my 2 cents without much reading what others have posted:
Assuming that Jesus’ main idea that he was trying to get out there was “Be cool to everyone and stop being such buggers about things you don’t like”, then his need to die for the sins of mankind makes sense. If we are supposed to accept and allow people to continue with things that are quite oficially sinful, then we would need to have, for ourselves, the knowledge that the onus for that continued sin has been paid.
So, for instance, we can allow athiests to get away with living sinful lives (luckily for myself) because Jesus died to pay for all those athiests. Of course we’ll still all go to hell, but at least you all don’t need to be buggers to us while we’re alive and can go about being to cool to us while we’re still alive.
…would be a view.
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Funny that you would try to lecture me about not knowing the Bible.
Diogenes the Cynic said:
I understand. That is your choice. But to the extent a person decides that they themselves can be the arbiter of what right and wrong is, Christianity will remain elusive, if not impossible. In virtually every thread that comes close to this topic someone will say some variation of “all you need is love” (the beatles song going through my head…) and misquote some scrpiture. The fact is, there are many more cites that show that Jesus Christ subordinated himself to do the will of his Father. Love is paramount. But along with love one must have a sense of their spiritual need, a hunger for it, and humility.
For my part, I recognize that if Jesus himself said that he was incapable [by choice] of being self willed, who am I to assert that my moral compass is any better? I would submit your compass doesn’t know true north, even though it appears to.
It is a choice. I’ve weighed the facts and come to the conclusion that there is a God, and that He has a will and purpose. I’ve considered the bible. I’ve even read the commentaries. (even the tin foil hat crowd) I’ve chosen to conform, to the extent my sinful condition allows.
There is the issue as to whether God is good. (I submit He is) And there is the issue as to whether you can insist on having Him adhere to your moral code. (I submit you can’t)
Well…The OP wasn’t general, not specific. Secondly, I would submit that the concept of the “ransom” is not one everyone is familiar with. In any event, it is the central anser to the OP—which is, “Why did Jesus have to die?”
You cannot answer this question (at all!) without going to the source—to find what the bible has to say about the purpose of his death. Yet here it is rarely done. I know of no other field of study where the source document—the authority on the subject—is so blithely ignored.
The main reason that I don’t post much anymore is that we’re not fighting ignorance. We’re breeding it. This is a cesspool of ignorance. Please note: This is not from a perspective of dogma. It’s simply from the perspective of what the bible has to say on a given topic. If a poster asks a question that must, by defintion, require the bible for the answer there will routinely be dozens of answers–sometimes more than a hundred—without ever referencing the bible.
My point is this: If you wish to know the answer to this question, read the bible yourself. Go to the source. And that goes for the believer or the academic; to the theist or the atheist.
We inherited sin. That sucks. Whether that is in our “genes” or not, we do not know. But the fact remains that we inherited the sin of Adam. We are not “blamed” for it in any way. It is a fact of heridity. Rather that “blaming” us, God sent His son (His son, not Himself) to balance the scales of justice and cancel out our curse of death, from inherited sin.
Romans 5:12 says this:
*12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. *
It does in fact say that sin was inherited; death spread to all men. How? “through one man”; Adam.
By reading the bible and endeavoring to understand God’s righteous expectations, His requirements and purposes. By taking in knowledge.
(as the first step in developing a relationship with God)
It’s not. Unrepentent sin results in death. Permanent death. A just God would not burn or torture someone for eternity for 70 or 80 years of sin, no matter how heinous the sins. I believe you and I agree on this. “Hell” is the common grave. It’s where you go when you die. It’s non-sentient death.
Well…says God…
The question bafles me. If God exists, and if He made all this stuff, there is no one else. God said as much, right? (Isa 45:5,6)
Nebuchadnezzar said:"… 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are being considered as merely nothing, and he is doing according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth. And there exists no one that can check his hand or that can say to him, ‘What have you been doing?’"****(Daniel 4:35) (bolding mine)
So the answe is yes. God can just say it and that makes it right. You are free to choose to reject this as out of hand. (and suffer the consequences)
He could have! But He didn’t. It simply appears that you disagree with how He does [did] things.
We can speculate all day long, or offer Monday monring quarterbacking. But it is not our right to determine what is right, and what course justice should take. We have neither the right or ability.
Satan does exist by the will of God. But the bible clearly says that in due time he will be executed for his crimes; he will be put to death. In the meantime we are every day, passively or actively, choosing whether we are willing to submit to God and His righteous requirements (that are, after all, based on love and for our benefit) or whether we are self willed. It’s up to you.
You’re asking me “WHY?” in the same breadth that you say that you won’t consider the texts that were offered? First, there is NO eternal torture. No burning hell for misdemeanors. God’s sense of justice, as articulated in the bible, offers us the hope of eternal life if we submit to Him and follow His righteous requirements. For those who choose not to, death awaits.
It’s His universe. It’s His rules.
If I could condense all of our exchanges to one comment, this one would suffice.
I would submit that having a relationship with God requires A) Love, B) A spiritual hunger, an awareness of one’s spirutual need, C) Humility and D) Knowledge of His will and purposes.
Because this was would be off-point of the OP (and I’m pressed for time) I will not cite it now. But there is ample cites/evidence to suggest that knowledge alone is insuffecient. (Satan himself is extremely knowledeable, and quoted the scriptures in Matt 4)
Without humility, without a desire to grow spiritually, your “knowledge” will be an empty vessel.
As long as you insist that God conforms to you, you will not find Him or know Him.
He could have. Be He didn’t. I would submit that a cursory reading of the bible will not give one an accurate reading on God, His purposes, or His personality. Trading barbs on an internet message board won’t get it.
It makes no sense to you.
To give people like you and me the time and opportunity to know Him and to bring our lives into harmony will His will and purposes; and to enjoy the benefits of taking such a course. (2 Pet 3:9)
There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of God. His “definition” is provided in rich detail in the bible. He articulates His requirements, His personaility, His intentions, and His purposes. That is the basis of one’s faith----an accurate knowledge of Him. (John 17:3 and many others)
If you are striving to be “good”, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that you will do many things that God approves of. We are, after all, made in His image. Hence the talk of the “natural laws.” Your motivation may simply be a regard for others, your self or your family. To be a productive part of society. But if you take a secular humanist approach, in which you become your own arbiter of what is good and what is not, you are not endeavoring to search out God’s will.
I don’t believe that the primary reason for doing good is the desire to go to heaven. One does it because of the love one develops for God, the richness and beauty in that relationship and the appreciation for Him and His qualities. He reciprocates by offering Life as a reward.
I don’t know about that. I know this: We must be obedient. Still, obedience is not driven by fear, or the fear of power.
If God exists, it would be impossible to do this.
I think you understand me just fine. It is the bible that I don’t think you understand. I say this with no shortage of trepidation. Several times in our relationship you have said, “I know more than you do.” (or variations of that) It’s clear that you place a great premium or knowledge and criticism. But it’s clear to me that the source of your knowledge is largely from commentraries about the bible, and not from the bible itself. In fact you recommend some book in this thread,right? Yet, here at SDMB you have been accorded props for your biblical knowledge.
There is a huge distinction. The basis of your posts rarely use the bible in any detail and many times I’ve called you out for [blatantly] mis-applying a scripture. And so while I applaud knowledge even from someone has no intention of using that knowledge to develop a working faith in God, I am simply saying that I find your biblical knowledge to be dubious. (while acknowledging that you are well read among authors who criticize the bible)
I will say this. In my view, there is some irony in this. Paul said "19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? "(1 Cor 1:19,20 also see Ps 33:10, 1 Cor 3:19, Isa 29:14, Jer 8:9, 1 Tim 6:20, Job 12:17, Rom 1:22 and others)
If God does exist (as an agnostic it would appear that you accept this possibility) than it would be at least possible that your knowlwedge is abject ignorance; that rather than going to the source of all knowledge you’ve chosen to take counsel from the creation (idiots like Spong et al) rather than the Creator. (God)
There is a distinction too between theology, dogma and a simple rendering of what the bible has to say on a matter. Most often, I have not criticized people for their interpretation of the bible, but for being unwilling (likely unable) to use the bible at all.
I will say this in parting: Lurkers, read it for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Look up the texts cited. Consider the context. Do the research. And come to your own [informed] conclusions.
So, why did Jesus die?
Sorry, I had to log off quickly last night. This thread has really gone far since that time. Let me see what I can say that Diogenes the Cynic has not already covered:
First I will actually post something to the OP:
The following makes sense to me. It is from The Incoherence of Original Sin and Substitutive Sacrifice. If you were to read it from a christian, than you could interpret it to mean that original sin is bull, and Jesus could have been a good teacher of ethics without having sacrificed himself.
As a result of original sin we cannot pay for our crimes and survive the process, which is to say that we deserve hell for our corruption and disobedience. Fortunately, Jesus ‘bore the sins of the whole world on the cross.’ A sinless person was allowed to undergo the (spiritual) death penalty that we deserve for our sins. This despite the fact that a moral debt, unlike an abstract monetary one, can’t be transferred. There are two conceivable parts of a monetary debt: the money owed, and the moral obligation the debtor might feel that would turn to guilt were the debtor incapable of paying the money and to suffer a conscientious reaction. In a sense, a debtor who finds herself incapable of returning the money owes both money and guilt, a kind of psychological recognition of fault. Were a debtor to find herself broke, and to fail to produce both the money and the consequent guilt the creditor would feel doubly cheated: first for the lack of the proper monetary payment, and second for the lack of the proper emotional response to the debtor’s fault. A debtor might try to substitute for the money owed a recognition of fault with overflowing guilt.
P.S. All quotes are taken from the one that christianity has held for a long time, The king James.
One explanation that I have thought of it that people of he time wrote a story about sacrifice. No godly intervention needed. Later, people try to say that it was both influenced by the times, and inspired by god, but I am just not buying it.
Gen.2:17
“But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
To me, “In the day” sounds an awful lot like the same day.
As for yBeayf, I have nothing to say that Diogenes has not already said, but he has stated his points more patiently than I feel I can.
Scott_plaid said:
Then cite them please, with “quotation marks” (Psalms X:X-XX) to separate them from your words, and a specific text cite either before or after the quote.
It’s easier to understand, and easier to respond to.
thanks.
Genesis 2:17
“But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
To me, “In the day” sounds an awful lot like the same day.
Happy now? I originaly thought I would have some more, but to use a baseball term, again, Diogenes pretty much covered all the bases.
Happy is a relative term, but I am content.
Thanks for asking!
In the day may very well mean that same day. Or, it could mean that their punishment, their death sentence, would be rendered “in the day” that they transgressed this requirement.
From the context—given that they lived on further, and actually did die-----that contextually “in the day” meant that their judgement would be rendered immediately “in the day” of their transgression. Their fate would be sealed so to speak.
I guess the nearness of opening day has us using baseball analogies. But from my seat, it appears Diogenes was thrown out at first after a slow ground ball…
the raindog:
What fast ball?
::he asks nearly a page later::
What lineup?
I’m not following you. If it had said, from this day, yes. But it sounds pretty time related.
You say that, I say that it is a clear contradiction and the context shows that it means not what you say, but that it is a simple plot hole.
I see now. That’s the more logical explaation given the outcome and context.
I plot hole.
How’d I miss that? :smack:
Lots of interesting stuff, thanks!
I have avoided quoting scripture since in my mind scripture was written by man for man and has undergone so many translations I doubt the original content is anywhere near what we see now.
Did you ever try that rumor example in school? Where the teacher tells one student something and by the time it is passed thru the whole class the final rumor is nothing like the original? Think about that, and add thousands of years and, probably, thousands of people all trying to interpret the same thing.
Im just looking at it from, what I think, is simple logic. Everything Jesus died for was put upon us by God. Sin, eternal death etc… And He, “with a snap of his fingers” could undo it all. Which still leads me to believe that Jesus was sent to live not die. We need to prove ourselves to Him, not the other way around.
The more I think about this I see the futility of debating it, since we cant know the mind of God we have to go with what we know and that is whats in the Bible etc… Something in me however still thinks we got it all wrong.
FTR, I am a Catholic and a weekly church attendee. To be honest tho, I go because it means alot to my wife, not to me.
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that the Scriptures have been repeatedly translated, from one language to another, until it finally arrived to us in English? And that the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic phrasings are no longer available?
May I ask how you arrived at that conclusion?