Why did Jesus appear when He did?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I suppose it is pointless to discuss the meaning behind it all if you believe in the “Jesus was real but wasn’t God” school. This belief is basically saying that the events occurred randomly and any higher meaning was invented after the fact.

But otherwise I don’t see a need to believe in God in order to discuss His motives. I’ve read debates on what Dracula’s motives were for traveling to England and whether Hawkeye was secretly working for the British. You can accept God as either a real entity or a fictional character and still discuss why He did what He did.
[/QUOTE]

Continuing the “Jesus was real but wasn’t God” idea, there are other questions that could be raised: Why do we still know the name Jesus? Why do billions of people in the world consider him to have been some sort of prophet or even divine? To my way of thinking, he was just another wandering Jew, preaching the love of the Hebrew God. So I suppose Paul and some other followers, and then successive generations of followers down to the time of Constantine, somehow managed to perpetuate the myth surrounding him until the time of the Catholic Empire, which then used Christianity as a means of control, and we’re still living with that legacy to this day. (Part of the problem there is peoples’ unwillingness to throw off the beliefs of their ancestors.)

I still find it perplexing that belief in the God of the Hebrews spread from that one small group of people in the Middle East to then encompass the globe in the forms of Christianity and Islam. It’s still more amazing that belief in the same god led to so much killing between the various groups.

42

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Why would god create man with a sinfull nature? How dumb would that be ,if you had options. Kind of like setting them up to be torched later and then blaming it on them.
[/QUOTE]

I cannot even believe I am writing this because I am neither a Christian nor a member of any religion, although I am not 100% certain there is no supreme being.

This is kind of like those questions theologians ask, like “Can an omnipotent God make something so heavy that he cannot lift it?”

But what do you think of this possibility? An omniscient, omnipotent supreme being has everything, right? Well, amazingly enough, no! There is one thing that such a God would not have: The freely given love of intelligent beings with free will who are capable of loving of not loving him.

If this sounds ridiculous, think about this: Why do people have children? To enrich themselves? Yeah, right! Ask any parent about the cost of raising kids. So what do you “get” out of having kids? I think that in the long run, all we want is to have a little creature that we “created” that we can love and who loves us back.

But love simply cannot exist if it is not freely given. I could put a gun to your head and order you to say you love me, and I bet that unless you are suicidal you would say it, but both of us would know that your declaration of love is 100% false and worthless because it is not freely given.

So this is the dilemma of a God who craves the feeling of being loved by creatures he has created. He must make them capable of freely rejecting him and NOT loving him, or the feeling “They love me” will be 100% worthless.

So God does indeed have the option of creating humans incapable of sin and automatically hard-wired to love and obey to him. But that would be as ridiculous as creating a robot that sends you a Valentine’s card every Feb. 14, and saying, “Oh, boy, somebody loves me.”

An omnipotent God who craves and enjoys the feeling of loving you and being loved back by you MUST make you capable of rejecting him and not loving him, or else the love is worthless.

Does any of this make sense to anyone?

43

Forgive me for continuing off-topic in my very first post, but though Valteron makes an excellent point, it raises another question in my mind. I have children of my own, and nothing delights me more in this world than their love for me (and mine for them).

But how would it be if they were sent to the ends of the Earth the minute they were born, and an intermediary came to them and said “Know that your Father loves you with all his heart. And though you will never see his face until you draw your last breath, have faith, and love him unconditionally all the days of your life, that he might be pleased with you.”

How realistic of mere mortals is that expectation? Why would a merciful God hold us to such a damn-near impossible task?

44

[QUOTE=Roonwit]
But how would it be if they were sent to the ends of the Earth the minute they were born, and an intermediary came to them and said “Know that your Father loves you with all his heart. And though you will never see his face until you draw your last breath, have faith, and love him unconditionally all the days of your life, that he might be pleased with you.”

How realistic of mere mortals is that expectation? Why would a merciful God hold us to such a damn-near impossible task?
[/QUOTE]
A merciful or loving God ( or plain old father ) would not. I note that Christians simultaneously claim that God loves us, and that he acts in ways no loving ( or even friendly ) being would towards us.

45

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A merciful or loving God ( or plain old father ) would not. I note that Christians simultaneously claim that God loves us, and that he acts in ways no loving ( or even friendly ) being would towards us.
[/QUOTE]

I note that you generalize like hell, too. Up until a few weeks ago, I’d have done a detailed response discussing that very point. As it stands, I can say nothing without a attack apparently postulated, by an atheist, on the basis that no Christian can hold any conviction about the Bible but its literality. Since I dislike being unable to say, “Playful puppies are cute” without having that opinion attacked, I have stopped posting to most religious questions. However, if you will expand your horizons to get past the distaste for Christianity that some self-styled Christians have left with you, you will find that the “God loves you, and if you don’t accept his love, you’ll burn in Hell Mwahahaha” meme is far from universal. Whether the other take is accurate – well, suffice it to say I’ve been saying so for over six years, and would continue to argue it now if it weren’t for certain reasons.

46

[QUOTE=Valteron]
If this sounds ridiculous, think about this: Why do people have children? To enrich themselves? Yeah, right! Ask any parent about the cost of raising kids. So what do you “get” out of having kids? I think that in the long run, all we want is to have a little creature that we “created” that we can love and who loves us back.

But love simply cannot exist if it is not freely given. I could put a gun to your head and order you to say you love me, and I bet that unless you are suicidal you would say it, but both of us would know that your declaration of love is 100% false and worthless because it is not freely given.

…

An omnipotent God who craves and enjoys the feeling of loving you and being loved back by you MUST make you capable of rejecting him and not loving him, or else the love is worthless.

Does any of this make sense to anyone?
[/QUOTE]

No, not to me. If you don’t love God you burn in hellfire forever and ever. That’s a way worse than any earthly punishment.

I forget who said it – probabaly good old 'luc – but the way he phrased it made me laugh. It went something like: so god made man, punished them collectively with original sin for the way he made them, then sacrificed himself – **to himself – a couple thousand years later to take it all better. And if you don’t accept then it’s straight to the boiling acid with ya!

And people make fun of Scientology…

Could you indulge me in your expanded horizons? The only other mainstream Christian belief I’ve heard is that is that hell isn’t a lake of fire but simply a separation from god…which, apparently, is eternal torture anyway, but hey, it’s not acid and brimstone.

47

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Up until a few weeks ago, I’d have done a detailed response discussing that very point. As it stands, I can say nothing without a attack apparently postulated, by an atheist, on the basis that no Christian can hold any conviction about the Bible but its literality. Since I dislike being unable to say, “Playful puppies are cute” without having that opinion attacked, I have stopped posting to most religious questions.
[/QUOTE]

I regret that it has come to this for you. I’ve read many of your posts over the years, and respect your studiousness. (In fact it was you that I was most hoping would attempt an answer to my questions.) I may never be able to say truly that I believe in God, given my incapablilty to prove his existence, but I am not in the habit of criticizing those who do believe. Would you humor me at the risk of those prejudiced against you?

48

[QUOTE=badchad]

That’s just made up. Nowhere in the bible does it say that.
[/QUOTE]

Well it is a interpertation, the evil one and his deamons did have the ability to directly interact with humans, to the extent to bread with them and produce half human half deamon creatures, so physcally killing a person was within the power of such a creature. Some theories I have heard were the gods of Grease (and then Rome), were these deamons - The thunderbolts that Zues threw could be such a deamon. Yes it’s speculation.

He does - Satan has already lost.

You ignore the wish of His children, to exist in the relm that Satan also exists, can’t do that w/o the evil one still alive and kicking.

How is God punishing us? We wished to live where we are, what kind of parent would YOU be if your child really wished to live in Red China and was old enough to decide for himself?

No they were forced out and prevented reentry by a flaming sword.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, so I won’t comment.

49

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
You damn well better be coming up with a definite proof of your statement here – it flies flat in the face of about 2/3 of Paul’s writings (though admittedly is supported by implications from instances when Paul is talking about God’s sovereignty).
[/QUOTE]

You know that’s funny. You’re saying my statement flies in the face of Paul’s writings though admittedly is supported by his writings. If it were anyone else I’d be surprised by this “logic.” Anyway here are some relevant verses.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8: 29-30

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the pleasure of his will.” Ephesians 1: 4-5

“In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Ephesians 1:11

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man who art thou repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why has thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” Romans 9:15-21
I honestly don’t know why you care though, Polycarp. We have pretty well established that scripture is entirely optional in your theology.

50

[QUOTE=Valteron]

But love simply cannot exist if it is not freely given. I could put a gun to your head and order you to say you love me, and I bet that unless you are suicidal you would say it, but both of us would know that your declaration of love is 100% false and worthless because it is not freely given.
[/quote]

Valteron, I think what you say makes a lot of sense, and I agree with what you say is ridiculous. However, what you are having a problem with here is exactly what is taught in the bible. If the bible is to be in anyway believed, the clear and recurrent take home message from god is; love me, obey me, worship me, or else. Or else I’ll make you suffer; I’ll smite you; send fiery serpents after you; drown you; and after that, burn you in hell.

I think you’re putting more thought into this than the originators of the bible did. Again I agree with your analysis, but the bible does say god predestinates people to hell. Even if it didn’t, it also portrays the Christian god of holding a gun to peoples heads with what as far as anyone can tell are literal threats of violence. Many liberal Christians will say that these threats are all figurative and otherwise try to hide these facts from others, but they sure are bound and determined that the bible should be taken literally whenever it agrees with their pre-held desires.

51

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I note that you generalize like hell, too. Up until a few weeks ago, I’d have done a detailed response discussing that very point. As it stands, I can say nothing without a attack apparently postulated, by an atheist, on the basis that no Christian can hold any conviction about the Bible but its literality.
[/quote]

That’s not really the case now is it?

I think a literal interpretation of the bible as held by self proclaimed fundamentalist Christians is absolutely ridiculous. It just so happens that I think your interpretations are equally ridiculous. I just do an especially good job of calling you on it, and if you thought my argument flawed, you’d have no compunctions about demonstrating it so. Fair is fair, and there is no reason why you should get special treatment promoting ignorance, no matter how nice and loving you make it sound. Of course it didn’t help matters when you used the f-word with me.

I don’t think I have or ever would criticize you for liking playful puppies. However, I would also not shy away from the fact that by endorsing/identifying/personifying the old testament god, Jesus either approved of, or took credit for, the drowning of every playful puppy in existence, save two.

Actually, if anything, you’re the “self-styled” Christian, those teaching “love god or else” are taking it straight from what they think is the divinely inspired word of the lord.

52

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Well it is a interpertation, the evil one and his deamons did have the ability to directly interact with humans, to the extent to bread with them and produce half human half deamon creatures, so physcally killing a person was within the power of such a creature. Some theories I have heard were the gods of Grease (and then Rome), were these deamons - The thunderbolts that Zues threw could be such a deamon. Yes it’s speculation.
[/quote]

*Go grease lightning you’re burning up the quarter mile!
(Grease lightning go grease lightning)
Go grease lightning you’re coasting through the heat lap trial!
You are supreme, the chicks’ll cream, for grease lightning!
Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go *… :wink:

Oh, you mean the Ancient Greece gods! Well, speculation remains that.

That is what he wants you to think! :wink:

Actually this bit of the biblical “timeline” made me lost much of the faith I had before. If Satan is so clever it is silly to ignore that Satan has read the plan on revelation already. One would expect him to make moves to prevent the end of times (yep, he is that evil). I know, the arguments then comes that Satan cannot avoid his preordained fate; but if that is so, we are back at the beginning: God is responsible in the end for this entire charade.

I have concluded that god if he/she/exist knows already that history, geography, nurturing, biology and social status is set when we are born and are a powerful component of our behavior or our “soul”, the idea of eternal punishment or original sin does not make sense. It seems that in essence we can use free will, but only on some occasions and the problem remains that those occasions are affected by ignorance.

I agree with Socrates that there are no bad people only ignorant ones.

That won’t fly, there is no way Adam or Eve would choose to exist in Satan’s realm after what they lost and the “facts of life” god launched at them. (His gig was up when he appears as not knowing what was going on, he was)

Once again: there is no part that says Adam and Eve wanted to leave, the text actually tells us that God did not tell the truth, the Snake did.

…to guard the way to the tree of life. Really, it is time to realize Genesis is an allegory; there was no actual location of the Biblical paradise.

53

[QUOTE=Valteron]
I cannot even believe I am writing this because I am neither a Christian nor a member of any religion, although I am not 100% certain there is no supreme being.

This is kind of like those questions theologians ask, like “Can an omnipotent God make something so heavy that he cannot lift it?”

But what do you think of this possibility? An omniscient, omnipotent supreme being has everything, right? Well, amazingly enough, no! There is one thing that such a God would not have: The freely given love of intelligent beings with free will who are capable of loving of not loving him.

If this sounds ridiculous, think about this: Why do people have children? To enrich themselves? Yeah, right! Ask any parent about the cost of raising kids. So what do you “get” out of having kids? I think that in the long run, all we want is to have a little creature that we “created” that we can love and who loves us back.

But love simply cannot exist if it is not freely given. I could put a gun to your head and order you to say you love me, and I bet that unless you are suicidal you would say it, but both of us would know that your declaration of love is 100% false and worthless because it is not freely given.

So this is the dilemma of a God who craves the feeling of being loved by creatures he has created. He must make them capable of freely rejecting him and NOT loving him, or the feeling “They love me” will be 100% worthless.

So God does indeed have the option of creating humans incapable of sin and automatically hard-wired to love and obey to him. But that would be as ridiculous as creating a robot that sends you a Valentine’s card every Feb. 14, and saying, “Oh, boy, somebody loves me.”

An omnipotent God who craves and enjoys the feeling of loving you and being loved back by you MUST make you capable of rejecting him and not loving him, or else the love is worthless.

Does any of this make sense to anyone?
[/QUOTE]

There are two problems with this argument. One is that God is perferctly capable of using his omnipotence and his omniscience to create only people he knows will freely choose to love him (this is NOT the same as creating people who are incapable of choosing otherwise, it’s a selective use of omnipotence in creating only people he knows will choose FREELY to love him).

The second problem is that free will is a logically incoherent concept to begin with. Something has to determine the will. That determinant either has to be random or caused. If it’s random it’s morally meaningless. If it’s caused, it’s not free. Free will either doesn’t exist at all, or is little more than a random number generator which determines actions but which has no moral value (and is still not really free).

54

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Well it is a interpretation…
[/QUOTE]

No, I think it’s called, totally made up fantasy. I’m pretty familiar with the bible and I don’t recall seeing that stuff anywhere. How about you cite the verses that you are “interpreting” to come up with that stuff.

55

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
If God hadn’t told them not to do it, it wouldn’t have been a sin, would it?

They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. Rev.12:11
What/Who has God given us to overcome? Here it is talking about “the accuser of the brethren,” or Satan. Read all the good stuff given to the overcomers in Revelation 2.
If He is omniscient and omnipotent, He knew Satan would be successful in deceiving Eve, and He created Satan for a reason that will ultimately result in our good, if we trust Him. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Sounds like God has it all planned out.

56

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are two problems with this argument. One is that God is perferctly capable of using his omnipotence and his omniscience to create only people he knows will freely choose to love him (this is NOT the same as creating people who are incapable of choosing otherwise, it’s a selective use of omnipotence in creating only people he knows will choose FREELY to love him).

The second problem is that free will is a logically incoherent concept to begin with. Something has to determine the will. That determinant either has to be random or caused. If it’s random it’s morally meaningless. If it’s caused, it’s not free. Free will either doesn’t exist at all, or is little more than a random number generator which determines actions but which has no moral value (and is still not really free).
[/QUOTE]

Good points.
The words “free will” don’t appear in the Scriptres, so someone had to somehow derive that concept from their interpretation of the Bible.

57

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
If He is omniscient and omnipotent, He knew Satan would be successful in deceiving Eve, and He created Satan for a reason that will ultimately result in our good, if we trust Him.
[/QUOTE]
And why should we trust him ?

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
The words “free will” don’t appear in the Scriptres, so someone had to somehow derive that concept from their interpretation of the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
Or . . . people came up with the idea with no help from the Bible at all.

58

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Actually this bit of the biblical “timeline” made me lost much of the faith I had before. If Satan is so clever it is silly to ignore that Satan has read the plan on revelation already.
[/QUOTE]

The way I take it is God, and very possibly Satan do not experence time as we do, but as a spacial dimention. In such a way Satan is now trapped by time and space - yes he knows he lost, but still has some manuvering room for now. He is just using that to cuase more damage.

59

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
If He is omniscient and omnipotent, He knew Satan would be successful in deceiving Eve, and He created Satan for a reason that will ultimately result in our good, if we trust Him. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Sounds like God has it all planned out.
[/QUOTE]

  1. The serpent in Genesis wasn’t Satan, just an ordinary talking snake.

  2. The serpent did not deceive Eve. He told her the truth – that eating the fruit would give them knowledge of good and evil. It was God who lied to them by telling them that eating the fruit would kill them.

  3. Since Adam and Eve ate the fruit before they knew the difference between good and evil, it couldn’t have been a sin (since they didn’t know it wrong to disobey God).

  4. There actually was no Adam and Eve, so why do we need to be redeemed for something that never really happened? If it’s an allegory, what does it mean?

60

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

  1. The serpent in Genesis wasn’t Satan, just an ordinary talking snake.
    [/quote]
    I know what you mean, but this gave me a snicker. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
4. There actually was no Adam and Eve, so why do we need to be redeemed for something that never really happened? If it’s an allegory, what does it mean?
[/QUOTE]
“Obey orders from your superiors, no matter how dishonest or self serving they are, and hate those who tell you the truth.”; a lesson any authority figure would love.