Yes, it was a very meaningful act. Humanity, because of their rebellion, deserve death and destruction. God forgiving everyone as if they had never done anything wrong would not allow people to realize the depths of their sin and rebellion. They would continue to live in rebellion to God realizing that their is no penalty. The point of the cross is that we can recognize how great the sin of humanity is because only God himself in human form could redeem man from his sin. My sin was so bad that only Jesus Christ could pay for it and thus redeem me.
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter…We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at whiomethng absolutel unimagiable from outside shows through into our world.”
C. S. Lewis argues that we do not need to understand how it happens to understand that it does. My personal beleif is that it is substitutionary, though I admit I do not understand why it was needed fully. I do not beleive I need to. I do recognize that the act of Jesus Christ on the cross does help instill in me how bad my sin was.
I realize that I will probably be made fun of for this, but I would like to you all know that you, just as me, are sinners. And that you will be judged for your sin. If your repent of your sins and turn to Christ you will be forgiven and redeemed and will live forever with God. If not you will die and burn in hell for all eternity. The door is open please come through and come to know Jesus Christ.
I think the classic response to this is someone like Ghandi will burn in hell since he did not embrace Jesus as his savior but someone like [deleted…do not want to Godwinize this] some person who does definitive evil but accepts Jesus as the true God and their savior will make it to heaven?
I seriously cannot imagine the Christian God to be so fickle.
I’d argue the problem with your argument is that it means that it is fair to judge people for the sins of others. It wasn’t “humanity” that rebelled, it was specific individuals. It’s saying, essentially, that you should pay the price for my sinfulness; that my lack of repenting means you will be damned along with me; and that this is a fair and just approach.
I didn’t rebel. I wasn’t even given the choice; not knowing God, i’m not even capable of rebelling, not recognising what I would be rebelling against. Why should I, and you, be punished for what I haven’t done?
It’s also worth noting that it wasn’t only God himself in human form that could redeem man. If you believe God is omniscient, then you cannot claim that God was bound to rules and laws; he may elect to follow them, but that doesn’t mean there was no alternative.
I have no desire to make fun of you, and i’m sorry your experiences have led you to consider it likely you will be. I hope that my post will not be judged by the reactions of others to mock you in the past.
I’ve been hearing this all my life from my local Christians, and despite honest efforts to examine this proposition it still makes absolutely no sense to me.
Im sorry I should have been more specific. When I said humanity I meant every single human being who has ever lived. Every person is guilty their are none who are not guilty. For this reason every person is only punished for their own crimes.
I would argue that you have done it. You are without excuse (just as I am) for your actions. You have a conscience and are able to tell right from wrong at its base level. Have you at any time in your life done something that you yourself would judge as wrong if someone did it to you?
I will agree that this is difficult to understand. I do not fully understand why it was the only way. What I do understand is that the sacrifice of Christ does indicate how bad sin is.
I only said the thing about mocking because I know how some people treat spiritual or non empirically provable claims on this board. I welcome your questions and I have no problem with the tone or manner in which they are asked. I welcome dialogue as we all can learn from each other.
I have no problem with non-empirically provable claims. I am cool with starting with a premise and then using reason and logic to see what flows from that.
Of course, “God exists, we are all sinners, Jesus had to die on the cross to save us” is a pretty big premise to start with.
However, even accepting that premise I am suggesting Christian Theology does not seem to make sense.
We have to of course define “God”. God is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Jesus = God.
From there you run into problems with killing him and all that follows from that.
Jesus Christ, the son/alternate personality/whatever of a being that burns people alive forever ? No thanks.
What you describe in a universe without hope, save through evil. A universe where you have the choice of grovelling before a monster worse than any mere human, or being in agony forever.
It’s not the Messiah. I don’t care what kind of hack Christian apologia you’ve read. It’s wrong. The Suffering Servant is Israel, and the text explicitly SAYS so multiple times. That is the Jewish interpretation, and that is the authorial intent. There was NEVER any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah was supposed to suffer or die, and there still isn’t. Your apologist is completely full of crap about traditional Jewish interpretation, pure and simple. You have a habit of citing pop Christian apologists as if they’re scholars.
Knowing Hebrew is nice, but is not sufficient to make him a scholar of ancient Jewsh religion, or of historical Biblical criticism, and, in fact, he’s wrong about it. He’s not publishing scholarship in this case. He’s just witnessing.
Apologies, then. I thought your argument was heading down “Original Sin” lines - that is to say, that we all are tainted by the actions of Adam and Eve; or that Jesus’ sacrifice was meant to counteract a general, unifying sinfulness of all people rather than the specific crimes that they have committed.
Certainly, I have. I’ve even done things that I judged as wrong even at the time, unfortunetly. But I don’t believe that my conscience and your conscience would agree on every detail; and considering that I do not believe in God, who (I would guess) is inescapably linked to goodness in your world view, then I don’t see how I can rebel against God or the state of morality you believe to exist. If, for example, I don’t consider taking God’s name in vain to be a bad thing, then by doing so I am not choosing to rebel against anything.
But it is only one measure, and not all sins (or sinners) are as bad. I mean, it doesn’t seem fair to me that all people, and all sins, are to be matched up against that sacrifice to show how bad they are. And I would argue that, if your beliefs are correct, that there is no level or amount of sin possible by one person for which the death of God is an appropriate measure of badness.
All I can say is that I will do my best not to mock or offend, and that if I do inadvertently, please tell me so that I can rectify my behaviour (and understand your viewpoint better).
Again the time in the grave does not matter, just that He went there at all. Jesus willing accepted the death sentence unjustly knowing it was God’s (the Father’s will for Him). Likewise some of the apostles knew that they were going to their death.
The fruit (or outcome) of the tree of good and evil was taken by following Satan’s path, not God’s, as such Satan became their god and from that point Satan could make rules for them and have the authority to enforce them. Satan is still under the authority of God, and though Satan does have a claim as god over humanity, God limits the rules and laws Satan can place on us. Since we can’t see spiritually, God acts as a mediator between Satan’s rights as our God and the ability for us to live some sort of free life.
As for not being mainstream, where does Jesus state that mainstream anything is the way the truth and the life? Did Jesus conform to the teachings of the time?
Scripture talks about other gods as real, Jesus even called men ‘gods’. If mainstream Christianity is denying what is stated in scripture then I’d say you have a choice to make, believe man or God.
[/quote]
Where did these gods come from? Did they exist before the Judeo-Christian God created the rest of the universe? Did they have a hand in creating the universe and humanity? Did the Judeo-Christian God create these other gods?
[/QUOTE]
God created all things, including other gods.
It’s the act of surrendering yourself to God through Jesus that gives you forgiveness of all sins every committed and that you will ever commit. At the time you come to Jesus and say that you don’t want to follow other gods (or god) or self, and want Him as your God and you will follow Him, at that time you and Jesus become one in person. So from that moment on, since you are Jesus (along with yourself) as a single person your sins are prepaid, as Jesus has already died.
I think the above is the more practical answer for your question, a more direct answer, is I believe no, one act of forgiveness does not necessarily forgive all. An example is you might steal something, feel bad, or even be caught, you cry out for God to forgive you, He may and even remove any punishment for that, but that’s a act of mercy, it is not the grace that is offered through Jesus. See Matt 18:21-35 Parable of the unmerciful Servant.
God’s way is the way of love for each other, it is a connectivity to God and to the body of Christ, which is all believers. Any other way from the above is separation from God. Hell as being in fire tormented by Satan/demons is who some have chosen to connect to instead of God. For those who chose not to connect to either God or Satan, either directly or through one of his demons, I believe that is called ‘outer darkness’ (Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30), IMHO a total universe with no light or warmth where you can be totally completely alone, crying in loneliness.
Is it a infinite penalty, for some I believe it is, but very very few, for the rest I believe they will be refined by fire, even fire of Hell if needed, as God desires all to be saved.
What was untrue is that some scientific theories have been proven true. That’s simply not the case as science, again, has no proof; it has only evidence.
Death is caused by separation from God who is the source of life. Can a branch bear fruit once it’s cut from the tree? Perhaps for a little while as it still has some nutrients in it, perhaps longer if you put it in water, but ultimately it will not bear fruit and soon die.
Once we sin we step outside God’s will and plan for us, as such we are cut off from that flow of life, and we will die.
Well if one thinks that one can be saved from a sin that one invented oneself by killing oneself – but only one of the three parts oneself believes he/she is made of – while also believing that one is immortal and once revived one can save oneself from said made-up sin with one’s believed omnipotence…sure, it makes all the sense in the world.
Why would an omnipotent, eternal God require obeisance? Seems a rather human desire for an all-powerful being to have.
And if God desires to save us all why would God feel it necessary to torment his creation in fire for perhaps eternity for the sole sin of “not believing”? This is a kind and loving God? If God wants us to all believe then God can achieve that easily right now.
What about people who fervently believe in Jesus but otherwise live a debased life versus someone else who lives a life that in all respects adheres to the best ideals of the teachings of Jesus but that other person has a different religious belief and does not believe in Jesus? Tough luck? Off to eternal hell and damnation?
What about a baby born and then dead before it can be baptised? It has zero chance to know and accept Jesus. What about any child who dies before they can learn and accept Jesus.
Sorry, the whole thing simply does not bespeak a God of love and forgiveness to me.
Explain this. “Rebellion” against what? What do you mean “death and destruction,” that they deserve to be killed? Everybody? Babies? Do you mean they only deserve physical death, or are you saying they deserve some kind of annhiliation of their souls as well?
What do you mean by “sin and rebellion” and so what if they don’t "realize the depths of it? How does that hurt God?
What does it mean to “rebel against God?” How does this rebellion hurt God? How is it even possible to rebel against God if you don’t know or believe he exists? How can an omnibenevolent God impose penalties for “rebellion,” if he is not willing to prove his own existence?i
This is a totally circular statement. It means nothing unless you already believe that the crucifixion was a redemptive act , and that humanity is guilty of some “great sin.”
What exactly IS the “great sin of humanity.” by the way?
This is exactly the kind of statement that makes no sense to me. What sin are you talking about? Why does it mean to say it has to be “paid for?” WHY does it have to be for? What happens if it doesn’t get paid for? Who has to be paid?
Furthermore, exactly how does a human sacrifice atone for someone else’s actions? Wht could God do after the crucifixion that he couldn’t do before it?
This is a masterpiece of handwaving and evasion on Lewis’ part. It answers absolutely nothing. It just says “we believe it because we believe it,” and dismisses all relevant questions with the cowardly word “somehow.”
By which he means you should just accept it without trying to think critically about it. Complete evasion.
[quote]
What did you do that was so bad? Did you rape old ladies or something? This is another common Christian mindset that escapes me. This self-loathing. This idea that humans are all innately loathsome and evil. I don’t accept that for a second. I don’t have any particularly horrible sins I think I need to atone for, and I certainly don’t need to apologize to any gods for anything.
Even if humans were innately “sinful,” that would still be God’s fault, not theirs.
Do you believe that anyone who does not “turn to Christ” deserves to be tortured forever? Seriously? It doesn’t matter what kind of person you are, it only matters if you “turn to Christ?” So Anne Frank and Gandhi are in hell, but Ted Bundy is in Heaven? This makes sense to you?
Even if all of what you say were true, how could it be consistent with a God who refuses to prove his own existence? How can he expect people to follow his will if he won’t make the slightest effort to rval what it is, or even reveal that he exists at all?
Near as I can tell, it’s one of two things:
a.) listening to woman in the first place (don’t hate me!) or,
b.) seeking knowledge, which seems more reasonable since religion itself fights very much against this. Why bother with trying to understand the world around us when you can just say “God did it!”? Of course, one wonders why these nutters are online in the first place since, after all, computers are the result of human knowledge completely removed from any god figure.
And then there’s the god of the gaps thing, which is essentially that anything science hasn’t done yet is the province of god. As time marches on, the gaps to cram this god in get smaller and smaller. That hardly speaks to powerful god; it speaks to an idea of convenience. Of course, if people find comfort in sacrificing their intellect, then more power to them. But keep it to yourselves as ignorance isn’t something many people in the world hold in great esteem; at least I do not.