Freethought & Rationalism Archive

exile · 02-10-2005, 03:49 AM

I can't help feeling there is some conceptual gap between us and the proposers of the divine christ hypothesis.

Even modern trinitarians are reduced to declaring this concept a "mystery" or an axiom that must be accepted a priori.

Yet in the culture of the time it was clearly accepted that men and gods could interact. Caesar was supposedly descended from Venus. He also became a God after death - and Caligula became a God when still a man! Does
the transcendtal, out-of-time, disembodied God we concieve of now have anything to do with the gods of those times, who were seen as
human beings with immortality and extra powers?

fast · 02-10-2005, 05:53 AM

I'm gonna have to come back to this. I wanted to drop in. Thank you for the responses. I see this is going to take a while to get at bottom of this.

Clivedurdle · 02-10-2005, 03:37 PM

Where does all the stuff about the second Adam and the church being the Bride of Christ fit in then?

The comment about earlier views of God being based on continuous interactions between God and Man, but our view is of a separation into spiritual and natural worlds, is possibly important.

Marriages are meant to bring forth children. What does the marriage of Christ and his Church bring forth? Is this a marriage of nature and the spiritual?

orac · 02-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensei Meela

[corrections in bold]

Can I play that game too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensei Meela

In my understanding, God set-up His rules so that a violation of the his rules (sin) results in death for the violater (sinner) because the concept of finite punishment for finite crime never entered almighty God's head, as it's one of those ideas evil humans came up with. God's rules allowed the violater (sinner) to eschew death (mercy) through the offering of a blood sacrifice because forgiveness without suffering is a human invention. Rather than change the rules that he made in the first place, and except for the rules about shellfish because he realised he screwed that one up, God elected to provide a blood human sacrifice that would cover the violations (sins) of all violaters by punishing the innocent instead of the guilty - but that's not a change of the rule where the guilty party has to pay (sinners) who opted in on the deal (Christians); this provision is not deserved (grace) because it's evil to allow another to suffer on one's behalf. Therefore the grace of God allows Him to have mercy on Christians but, strangely enough, God still has to have some pain and suffering before he'll allow himself to forgive. One day, God will come to prevent any further violations of His rules by destroying all non-Christians because, as we all know, not one single christian has ever commited a single sin.

The reasons why He chose this means are inscrutible stupid.

There's a couple of problems left for compassionate and decent christians to explain:

1) Why exactly is the concept of a scapegoat so popular? Isn't there a slight question as to the appropriateness of that?

2) Why the requirement for suffering before forgiveness? Did noone ever tell Jesus the parable of the prodigal son? Damn, I wish Gideon had left a bible in Jesus's hotel room.

Oh, and compare the rules laid down in the old testament with the rules preached in sunday schools all over the world - you'll find that a rgeat many christians firmly believ that God did in fact change his rules every now and again.

jdlongmire · 02-10-2005, 08:25 PM

here - go read a bit

unless this is just about mockery...

Rational BAC · 02-10-2005, 08:44 PM

As a very excellent Christian I in no way believe in original sin. And in the idea that the crucifixion had anything to do with relieving mankind of a non-existent burden.

So God came to Earth to live as a human for thirty years for what reason?

To better understand the human condition. Call it "slumming" if you want.

Why the crucifixion? Well pain and suffering and rejection are part of the human condition. Not the whole part. Just an unfortunate part, but it is there. Always has been there. Always will be there.

So God did the whole 9 yards. What else would you expect a God to do? Cop out on the bad part?

And maybe He understands us a little better because of it.

Jobar · 02-11-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational BAC

So God came to Earth to live as a human for thirty years for what reason?

To better understand the human condition. Call it "slumming" if you want.

:rolling:

Did he also buy the t-shirt, and eat the hamburger? Did he go home sunburned?
:rolling:

Quote:

And maybe He understands us a little better because of it.

Um- so omniscience is out the same window with all that wrath and damnation??

Clivedurdle · 02-12-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational BAC

As a very excellent Christian I in no way believe in original sin. And in the idea that the crucifixion had anything to do with relieving mankind of a non-existent burden.

So God came to Earth to live as a human for thirty years for what reason?

To better understand the human condition. Call it "slumming" if you want.

Why the crucifixion? Well pain and suffering and rejection are part of the human condition. Not the whole part. Just an unfortunate part, but it is there. Always has been there. Always will be there.

So God did the whole 9 yards. What else would you expect a God to do? Cop out on the bad part?

And maybe He understands us a little better because of it.

You are not meant t o go around calling yourself excellent! No man is good! All have fallen short!

As a former xian I am sorry I would definitely label you with the lukewarm Laodicians!

What exactly does your religion do for you that a good enlightenment education wouldn't?

Rational BAC · 02-12-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

:rolling:

Did he also buy the t-shirt, and eat the hamburger? Did he go home sunburned?
:rolling:

Um- so omniscience is out the same window with all that wrath and damnation??

Yes omniscience is out the window along with wrath and damnation.

Omniscience is just a made up human ideal searching for some kind of perfection that does not exist. Perfection can not exist.

All the things that Man might imagine in his wildest fantasies do not have to be really true.

I think it is much better to believe in the God that you got, rather than the one that can only exist as a silly fantasy.

So He ain't perfect? So He don't know every damned thing? So He ain't that nice sometimes? That is the God as demonstrated in the Bible.

h2o4life_200 · 02-17-2005, 09:27 PM

Fast-

You asked for a christian interpretation of what John 3:16 is about, well here is my own semi-informed interpretation. The verse for those who dont know it goes a little something like this: "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten son, that whomever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.'
The Bible is divided into two sections that are commonly known as the Old and New Testaments. The old being all of the pre-Christ Biblical teachings and the New being the Christ and post Christ teachings extending throuhgh the final chapter revelations. The most important thing to remember about John 3:16, is that it is a culmination of sorts in the concept of Christ. In the Old testament you will find that the "children of God" encounter many hardships and sufferings that often times provokes the question of the ability to have both an all good God and a just God. I have sat and thought about this predicament that had brewed in the Old testament for the Israelites and God. The answer to the question and problem was the birth, life, and death of Jesus and here is why. Jesus is the representation of God here on earth because I believe in the triune God(father, son, holy ghost). The gift of a divine being and savior that came to die for the sins of all mankind solves the problem of God being all good. For I can think of no greater sacrafice that portrays the love of someone than to die for them or to send your own son to die for them. Voluntarily I might add. However, this is not all honey and flowers. Mankind had a debt of sin to pay for and God in order for to a just God had to demand payment. His ultimate wrath was taken out as Jesus was born to die upon the cross, tortured by man, and rejected. So the reality of John 3:16 is that it is the representation of the greatest gift of love and the greatest show of wrath for the penalties of sin as God revealed it to us in the Bible.
For the wages of sin is death. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.

So here it is, take it or leave it. I hope that it answers your question about the christian interpretation of John 3:16. To anyone that may feel inclined to respond, I would like to request that if you disagree, please do so respectfully. I put this post up because it is what I believe in. If you dont agree, that is just fine. I am not here to convert everyone on this site. If you have any questions though, just ask.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2005, 03:49 AM	#11
exile Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 735	I can't help feeling there is some conceptual gap between us and the proposers of the divine christ hypothesis. Even modern trinitarians are reduced to declaring this concept a "mystery" or an axiom that must be accepted a priori. Yet in the culture of the time it was clearly accepted that men and gods could interact. Caesar was supposedly descended from Venus. He also became a God after death - and Caligula became a God when still a man! Does the transcendtal, out-of-time, disembodied God we concieve of now have anything to do with the gods of those times, who were seen as human beings with immortality and extra powers?

02-10-2005, 05:53 AM	#12
fast Contributor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Carolina, USA Posts: 14,025	I'm gonna have to come back to this. I wanted to drop in. Thank you for the responses. I see this is going to take a while to get at bottom of this.

02-10-2005, 03:37 PM	#13
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Where does all the stuff about the second Adam and the church being the Bride of Christ fit in then? The comment about earlier views of God being based on continuous interactions between God and Man, but our view is of a separation into spiritual and natural worlds, is possibly important. Marriages are meant to bring forth children. What does the marriage of Christ and his Church bring forth? Is this a marriage of nature and the spiritual?

02-10-2005, 08:25 PM	#15
jdlongmire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: American by birth, Southern by the grace of God! Posts: 2,657	here - go read a bit unless this is just about mockery...

02-10-2005, 08:44 PM	#16
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	As a very excellent Christian I in no way believe in original sin. And in the idea that the crucifixion had anything to do with relieving mankind of a non-existent burden. So God came to Earth to live as a human for thirty years for what reason? To better understand the human condition. Call it "slumming" if you want. Why the crucifixion? Well pain and suffering and rejection are part of the human condition. Not the whole part. Just an unfortunate part, but it is there. Always has been there. Always will be there. So God did the whole 9 yards. What else would you expect a God to do? Cop out on the bad part? And maybe He understands us a little better because of it.

02-17-2005, 09:27 PM	#20
h2o4life_200 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 34	Fast- You asked for a christian interpretation of what John 3:16 is about, well here is my own semi-informed interpretation. The verse for those who dont know it goes a little something like this: "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten son, that whomever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.' The Bible is divided into two sections that are commonly known as the Old and New Testaments. The old being all of the pre-Christ Biblical teachings and the New being the Christ and post Christ teachings extending throuhgh the final chapter revelations. The most important thing to remember about John 3:16, is that it is a culmination of sorts in the concept of Christ. In the Old testament you will find that the "children of God" encounter many hardships and sufferings that often times provokes the question of the ability to have both an all good God and a just God. I have sat and thought about this predicament that had brewed in the Old testament for the Israelites and God. The answer to the question and problem was the birth, life, and death of Jesus and here is why. Jesus is the representation of God here on earth because I believe in the triune God(father, son, holy ghost). The gift of a divine being and savior that came to die for the sins of all mankind solves the problem of God being all good. For I can think of no greater sacrafice that portrays the love of someone than to die for them or to send your own son to die for them. Voluntarily I might add. However, this is not all honey and flowers. Mankind had a debt of sin to pay for and God in order for to a just God had to demand payment. His ultimate wrath was taken out as Jesus was born to die upon the cross, tortured by man, and rejected. So the reality of John 3:16 is that it is the representation of the greatest gift of love and the greatest show of wrath for the penalties of sin as God revealed it to us in the Bible. For the wages of sin is death. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom. So here it is, take it or leave it. I hope that it answers your question about the christian interpretation of John 3:16. To anyone that may feel inclined to respond, I would like to request that if you disagree, please do so respectfully. I put this post up because it is what I believe in. If you dont agree, that is just fine. I am not here to convert everyone on this site. If you have any questions though, just ask.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.