How about God predicting perfectly the lottery numbers for every single lottery for the next ten years? Or causing all the dead to instantly rise from their graves? Making the sun stand still for a day? I would certainly sit up and take notice at that. The “you skeptics won’t even believe even if someone rises from the dead” is a cheap assault on those of us skeptics who would believe given sufficient evidence. Nor am I requiring a miracle on demand, but simply asking that if–as you claim–God killed Himself as a means to get our attention, why he didn’t pick a more effective method. Frankly, God could prove himself to the satisfaction of a reasonable skeptic quite easily, Abraham’s comments notwithstanding. He could certainly supply more and better proof of his existence and get a lot more attention through other means besides a man’s death two thousand years ago. For some reason God does not see fit to furnish such evidence, but kindly don’t claim that we skeptics would not believe were such evidence given unless you have some actual proof of our intellectual dishonestly.
Really? Well, I know Catholics don’t believe baptism is required for salvation, and the kid is too young to be in danger of mortal sin. So, if Protestants don’t believe that, and Catholics don’t believe that, and I’m pretty sure none of the other branches do either – where the heck does rjung get the idea??
Cite?
Thank you.
**
Naive?!?!
It’s that whole Holy Trinity thing. It’s absurd to me. It’s like God has Multiple Personality Disorder and isn’t aware of what He is doing all the time. How, for example, could God know when the earth is to end, but not Jesus Himself if they are both One and the Same? (Matthew 24:35 & 36 and Mark 13:31 & 32) Either that, or Jesus really was not God-in-the-flesh and just another man.
The Bible told me all that. The sacrifice of Jesus is supposed to usher in a New Covenant to replace the Old one. Why? Was the Old one imperfect? Is God incapable of writing covenants we can all live by?
Why? Were they too hard to be observed and/or fulfilled? (How does one “fulfill” a rule, anyway?) If a rule is so strict that it cannot be perfectly observed by anyone, doesn’t that mean it’s too strict, that it’s unreasonable?
Here is a good book on the subject: When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome by Richard Rubenstein
Here’s a decent website.
He went to death to show that He loved and served Himself?
Interesting website, Homebrew. I like the “aquatic ape” page.
To move it back one more notch, did God set it up this way? I was under the impression that sacrifice was only for unintentional sin, and in Micah it states that repentance can take the place of sacrifice. God wants a sincere heart more than a dead animal.
But what if the concept of original sin is to justify the sacrifice of Jesus and not that the sacrifice of Jesus was to overcome original sin. Original sin is not a concept found in the Old Testament, in fact, just the opposite. The concept is needed to explain why Jesus needed to be “sacrificed”.
But if you take away the need for a sacrifice and the concept of original sin, then Chistianity has a problem. Wasn’t it Jesus who said he came not for the righteous but to the wicked? So Jesus assumes there are righteous people before his “sacrifice”. Even the beginning of Genesis says man can conquer sin on his own (to paraphrase “sin is crouching at your door but you can overcome it”).
There is no such thing as infinity. It’s an abstract mathematical concept. The universe is finite in age and size.
Then Jews and Christians should have the same beliefs. They don’t.
Our will is stronger than God’s?
Answer this one: You say Jesus’s sacrifice was for us. But every sacrifice is TO someone. To whom did Jesus sacrifice Himself?
Yeah, let’s not forget that God created sin (or evil), not Satan and not Adam & Eve. (Remember the tree that A&E weren’t supposed to eat from? The one called “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? Who created it? God did.) It’s God’s fault there is evil, nobody else’s.
I will try to describe how I see it. (For those few who might remember a similar post from a while ago, this is not a re-iteration of those ideas.)
Let’s take God as a primary notion. Let’s define the notion G as an attribute of God. Everything about God is G, and nothing outside God is G.
God created man. God wanted man to be with Him, but wanted to give him a choice: the choice to stay with God, and share with Him all the attributes of His being, or to depart from God and exist on his own. Living a life outside God implies, by definition, a life without G, since G is in God’s nature.
God told man how he could express his choice. Anything man could have done would have been an act within the scope of his relationship with God, since that was the state man was created in. Therefore, God had to designate a certain unique act as being outside that relationship, with the only purpose to make it possible for man to do something outside God. He told man what that conventional act was. God made clear to man that once he made that choice, he will exist in the absence of G, which is called D. D is defined as separation from God, and everything else implied by it.
One day man chose to exercise his free choice. Although he had experienced G, he was told (and he believed) that to really get to know G and D, he had to break free and experience D on his own. He made the choice, and proceeded to exist separately from God. Man has started to experience the vastness of D. It has been, ever since, a painful experience, trapped between man’s desire to experience G again, but at the same time be without God. This contradiction, by definition, is without solution.
Today, man is not able to walk back to God. That would mean to only choose G and never D, which would require all his acts to be in harmony with God. Man’s present state is so remote from God, however, that the things that are in God’s nature (like sharing G with others) are sometimes extremely painful for him. If man chose to consistently, without exception, perform only acts in harmony with God, he would, at times, experience inimaginable pain. Practically speaking, man is now unable to experience G and only G, because he cannot withstand the pain.
Jesus was a man. He is also the Son of God, and one with God; this is different from being God. He is with God, and shares all attributes of God, because He chose consistently, despite all temptation, all pain, and all consequences to Him, to do only acts in harmony with God, and as such, to never leave God. He did, as a man, what we cannot do ourselves: he walked the path from man back to God. He reversed the state of separation.
But in order to do that, He had to first complete that state. Otherwise, the original choice man had made would never have been fulfilled. Complete separation from God is D. Jesus had to experience D at its fullest, in order to fulfill the choice that man had made. His words on the Cross attest that He indeed experienced it.
Those who want to walk the path back to God, but cannot, have to wish in their hearts to have been able to do it. They have to wish in their heart to only experience G, and share it with others, which is in the nature of G. They have to wish in their heart they had never been separated from God. They have to want to end their state of separation, and re-join God. God will honour their request, and end their separation from Him, therefore preventing the state of D they would be in if they chose the alternative. God will also honour the request of those who would rather be on their own, without God. Those will have chosen to completely fulfill their path to D.
Please forgive the dry tone of this post; it’s just that I don’t know how to say it better.
–
(Libertarian: I missed you :))
Hence two other things Christians portray by this statement:
-
What a petty, self-absorbed god you worship - “You don’t get anything until you love me, and unless you do, you’re going to Hell,” says he. “After all, look how much I love you.” What a whiner. And even when you do, I don’t know any Christians who are perfect, so obviously he’s not granting his “intervention” to help out in that regard.
-
So Christians who love god are perfect? Where does that leave the rest of us? It must be so difficult for you to have to tolerate our imperfections day in and day out.
The foundations upon which Christianity is based is still too “us/them” for my tastes.
Esprix
I suppose since I’ve been running around borrowing jab1’s quote as my sig, I should throw in my thoughts. To me, and jab1 could mean something entirely different, this sig file questions two Christian doctrines: (1) God’s omnipotence, and (2) to a much greater extent, the Trinity.
God’s omnipotence
When I use the phrase “the rules,” I’m essentially referring to the pre-Christ Jewish thought on salvation. You follow the rules, formally known as The Law, and everything is cool between you and God. However, Christians maintain that Jesus is the ultimate “fulfillment” of The Law. To me, they’re essentially playing word games. Jesus changed the rules. He didn’t follow all of The Law–for instance, he ate non-kosher foods. Christians maintain that Jesus led a perfect existence, free from all sin. Yet, if any other Jew before Jesus had eaten a cheeseburger, they would have been a sinner. If Jesus is Perfect, then the rules MUST have been changed, so that eating a cheeseburger is no longer bad. So save me your “He didn’t change the rules, He fulfilled them.”
So the rules were definitely changed, and they were changed (or fulfilled if you wish to be obstinate), Christians maintain, when Jesus was crucified. Here is why God’s Omnipotence is called into question. Why did he have to send Jesus to die? He could have done an inordinate number of OTHER things. He could have sent his avatar, the Flaming Peanut Butter Without Jelly Sandwich, to proclaim to every living human that you can gorge yourself on ham and swiss sandwiches. He could have snapped his fingers, and POOF–suddenly everyone knows that God doesn’t care if you turn on the TV on Saturday. He could have rearranged the stars to say, “Jews, I dig ya, but enough with the burning bulls already.”
Christians say that Jesus was necessary because he took the sin of humanity, was separated from God for three days, and that’s how the rules were changed. At least, that’s my understanding. My question is–how can you even USE the words “necessary” or “necessity” when talking about an omnipotent being? Saying that God has to do something puts limits on him, and means that he can’t be omnipotent.
However, this question can be simply resolved by answering “mysterious ways.” No, an insightful Christian may retort, God didn’t HAVE to sacrifice Jesus. But that’s the way he did things, and the important thing to realize is that it DID happen. He could have just as easily have sent the Sandwich Avatar and done it that way, but he didn’t. Perhaps a person dying is more profound than some talking sandwich. However, I’m still gonna go with Gaudere: there are things that are even MORE attention-grabbing than having some dude die 2000 years ago.
The Trinity
I’m afraid I’m going to have to echo the sentiments of some of the other posters. What type of significance does a sacrifice have when you sacrifice to yourself?? It makes no sense–you sacrifice TO someone ELSE. And yet, we’re supposed to understand that Jesus was sacrificed BY humanity TO God. Or, kicking in the Trinity-Talk, Jesus was sacrificed BY humanity TO Himself. It’s a semantic impossibility.
I’m agnostic, so I have a resolution: it’s probably all bupkus anyways. However, if I were a “believer,” I’d have to think that there IS no Trinity. Perhaps a Duality–God and the Holy Spirit. But one could just as easily say that the Holy Spirit is merely God influencing the world, and not have it be separate from God at all. Whatever, that’s a tangent. My main point is–Jesus doesn’t HAVE to be God at all. If this is the case, then the sacrifice would have meaning. Jesus is the perfect being (perfect because God decided to change The Law, for some reason). He loves perfectly, He acts perfectly, and he does all those other goody-goody things perfectly. Therefore, in Christian terms, Jesus is the only time God got things RIGHT.
All this talk about Jesus being God is metaphorical. Jesus is God inasmuch as he perfectly represents God’s plan for humanity. He’s “divine,” so to speak, in that he is perfect. But he’s not Divine; he’s not God.
I’ve heard before that Jesus never says in the Bible, “I am God.” Can anyone disprove this?
Ok, I’ve gone from rambling to REALLY rambling. Kudos to you if you followed the incoherence. But bottom line:
(1) God picked one whacked way to decide that he didn’t like The Law anymore,
(2) Jesus can’t be God, or else sacrifice doesn’t make any sense,
(3) And, of course, Hi Opal
Quix
Friends:
Thanks so much for the warm welcomes and kindnesses. I apologize to the moderators for the Pit-rant in my Opening Post. My anger was directed not at atheists, but at “Christians” who express their “love” by vomiting a nonexistent god from their bellies rather than sharing the Living God from their hearts.
I have but a few relatively free days. It behooves me, therefore, to attend your questions and comments as efficiently as possible.
The viewpoint that God is petty because He is God-centric (believe in Me or die) is quite amazing, given that God is good. When you have a Being Who is perfectly good, why would you want Him centered on anything else? Is it better for us that the Good Being become less good by joining evil with Himself? Is a good government better when it becomes infested with corrupt politicians?
Goodness is the source of Love. Not the emotional love that dies away when the brain dies, but the Love Everlasting, as in the Love that is to be found in Gaudere’s heart. In all truth I tell you that the God she does not believe in does not exist. When she sees the God Who is real, she will know Him instantly as the Love she now treasures. Atheist. Theist. These are terms that define an intellectual, and therefore irrelevant, perspective. The intellect doesn’t matter. The emotions don’t matter. The atoms don’t matter. It is only the Spirit of Goodness and Love that is eternal, and therefore real.
Now what of sacrifice? Much is made about God’s sacrifice on Calvary. And yet, as I’ve said, the deed itself was trivial. That is, the atoms that chemically bonded to produce Jesus’ torture are not even real. But the context in which the crucifixion occurred — the moral context — is very real indeed.
What does Jesus mean by this? “To love [God] with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” I tell you in all truth He means that there is no sacrifice we can offer that is of any consequence. If you are an expert computer programmer who knows everything about programming and programs perfectly, of what use is the offering of a novice’s advice on how you should develop your program? You are already perfect. His advice will only compromise your work. Though he might be willing to sacrifice his time for you, what good would come of it? Rather, the good would come if you sacrifice your time for him, to give him your expertise, to raise him to your level of perfection.
Likewise, the only sacrifice that matters is God’s own. What exactly does He sacrifice?
God is Spirit. He dwells in our hearts, that is, in that part of ourselves where we store what we treasure. Each of us has a “piece of God” within us (Quakers call it the light of God). So long as we love one another (and therefore Him), He is alive. But He cannot co-exist with evil, any more than a government can be good when corrupt and evil politicians control its helm. What God sacrificed that He cannot recover is part of His Own Being. That which He gave out freely and was spoiled, He eviscerated.
Our real selves is not our brains. Our real selves is our spirit. It is His Spirit, one and the same.
Yes, God is selfish, and let us be ever thankful for that! As an Objectivist, I cannot imagine the horror that might await us if our Perfectly Good God were a compromiser, and were willing to become maybe not so good.
As to our will trumping His will for us, that is perfectly as it should be. Were God to “snap His fingers” and produce beings that adore Him, what good is that? Is anyone here fooled by the computer program that opens by saying, “Good morning, Jab. Good to see you today!” Hardly. We know that the computer has no choice but to express its “interest” in us. We might give the program other branches, determined by pseudo-random seed values — expressing interest, expressing hatred, expressing love — but until we allow the computer to write its own programs and make its own decisions, we have nothing of value with respect to a relationship with our machine.
Likewise, when God gives Himself to us, He does so not only freely, but completely. He surrenders not only His life-stuff (His Spirit), but His will as well. The love that is good is not the “love” that is regurgitated by a slave who has no choice, but rather the love that is freely and willfully offered by free people. If you, as imperfect as your own love is, capture the object of your love and hold him prisoner at gunpoint, requiring of him the expression of adoration, will you be fooled into believing that he loves you? Why would God be an even greater fool?
As to “Christian logic” being a house of cards, what logic is not? As we have discussed on these threads in the past, even proving our own existence by deduction is a futile effort that fails by one of deductive logic’s own fallacies (begging the question). You will not find God with logic, but only with Love.
Again, thank you Mulley, Gaudere, Poly, Lambda, Cabbage (elsewhere) and all others who have so warmly welcomed me back. I still owe Lissener a short story. Is he still around?
Post script: Oh, and one more matter. Why did (does, will) God do these things the way He did (does, will)? If you want to know truly whether your son loves you, you must give him the choice to disown you. See whether you can conceive a better way to allow man to be a free moral agent than to give him a context of reality perception and allow his will to trump yours.
And the Trinity? Fuggeddabouddit. It is a distraction. With apologies to my good friend, Phil, it is piddly shit. We all have God within us. It is not a trinity, but an infinity. What does Jesus mean by this? “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” In all truth I tell you that He means we all are One.
There is no evidence of the use of force used to settle theological disputes presented on that (somewhat biased, anyway) website. You want to give me something better, or do you want to rescind your remark?
Special note for Gaudere:
Take off your temporal blinders. See from His reference frame: eternity. All that will be already has been. What does Jesus mean by this? “It is finished.”
Mulley:
Oh, be nice.
Libertarian, great to see you around the boards once again. I’ve missed your input.
Anyways, I think you raise some interesting points. Would it be correct to say that God sacrificed Himself to demonstrate His love for us, rather than just snap His fingers and be done with it, because He wants us to have free will. And that he did this not to change us, but to show us His love. I can see the viewpoint that the greatest expression of His love for us would be to become one of us, and then willingly give His life to save us.
Not that I believe that it actually happened, but when you explain things the philosophical aspects of it make more sense to me.
:rolleyes: Look, it is fairly simple. According to Christian belief, everyone has a soul. Everyone, obviously, has a body. They believe – well, the ones which make sense to me anyway – that by dying a spiritual death of the soul to sin that they then recieve a Holy Spirit (as a replacement, so to speak) from God, or as Paul says “put on Christ.” Jesus put on Christ, or Christ was annointed upon him – whatever. Hence, he was spiritually fully God – as God and the Holy Spirit are one, and physically fully man.
Ah – but was this Spirit of Jesus’s really a Holy one, or in fact a demon? Since a demon can not love God, yet Jesus did love God and God ressurecting him shows God loved Jesus – the whole thing is taken as evidence that his Spirit was indeed Holy. Thus, what he taught must be true.
Do you understand?
Er… last I checked, Genesis 3 is still part of the Old Testament.
Etc.
Compare the Gospel of Thomas
That is entirely possible. The problem, of course, is in the transmission of the truth, when people because of their blindness (a blind being a place where one hides?) have difficulty knowing what it is.
The New Testament also contends that man can overcome sin.
How did he “experience D to the fullest” and remain free of sin?
Jeremy! How I treasure you!
God’s sacrifice does indeed demonstrate His love for us, though He doesn’t do it for the purpose of demonstration, but for the purpose of fulfillment. Nothing survives in the end but Goodness. There is no Life outside of Love.
Think reference frames. If God is Perfect and Perfectly Good, then His is the only reference frame that matters, because it is the only one that is real. That makes His reference frame the Absolute one.
That which is real within us is our spirit, a “piece” of Him. Our bodies will decay. Our brains will cease their electrochemical synaptic discharges. The eyes with which we see charts and graphs and instrumentation readings will rot away. Our senses can tell us nothing of God, because they are useful only within their own physical context: making sense of the wave peaks, the particles, the atoms. Things that die.
Seek out God with your heart (i.e., the essence of yourself), not your brain.
Physical analogies (as Gaudere so consistently proves) are poor representations of spiritual matters, so try to see the point of the analogy, rather than over-analyzing it to death. What God did (does, will do) for you is (sort of) the equivalent of your giving up a vital organ to save the life of a friend.
God divvies out Himself to each of us, and turns stewardship over to us. He becomes us. We are He. That which is truly alive in us is not that which is fueled by oxygen, but that which is fueled by Love. It is up to us whether we shall feed the God within us, that is, the God that we are, or whether we shall starve it.
To understand these things, you must think from God’s point of view (reference frame): that of Perfect Goodness and Love. Nevermind what others say. Look within.
When God took on the sins of the world, those “pieces” of Him that He gave to careless and woeful stewards, died. That was the purpose of His sacrifice: to remain Perfectly Good.
All those dead goats for nothing?? Aw, crap. 
(good thing I like cabrito.)
Then who is Jesus speaking of when he mentions those who do not have the light?
The implication you are making is that no one is evil. If no one is evil, why is there a hell?
Still a gnostic, eh Libertarian? I mean, he was talking to his disciples here. If you put this back in context, he goes on to saying he isn’t talking about everyone.