h2o4life_200

Hmmmm, I am curious to know what kind of a Christian you are if you can be defined as such. If he isn't perfect then why do you believe in him? Furthermore, if he isn't perfect, then how can he be called God which is defined as being an all perfect being? What evidence do you have to support these conclusions? I don't see a way that you can claim these things and still call your self a Christian. I am not picking a fight but everything that you have written seems to contradict a Christian episcopalian perspective. I guess that my question be it not too forward of me is: What is a Christian, and what are the things in which he/she believes? Secondly, what do you call yourself?

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I bet he comes back in about 70 years to understand us somemore!

Columbus

This makes no sense to me. How could Adam and Eve acquire a debt of sin when they had never experienced the difference between obedience and disobedience? Why couldn't God have reversed the effects of the poorly placed Tree? The problem, according to Genesis, wasn't that Eve ate the apple and shared. It was the effects the apple had on them. Effects that were solely because God created that Tree as it was and put it there. He didn't need to for any reason. He did it because He knew it would result in billions of people suffering eternal torment in Hell. Which meant that the people who didn't wind up in eternal suffering had "freely" chosen to worship the correct Image of God, despite all the other images of God they were taught to worship instead.

Where is the Justice in God demanding payment from us ignorant humans? Payment that benefits no-one? Payment from people who had nothing to do with what God is upset about. Payment from people who cannot fix anything, when God obviously could fix everything quite easily. What does Justice have to do with Genesis?
I am trying to respond respectfully. But yeah, I have some questions. I hope you'll try to answer them. My interpretation of the word "Justice" is the attempt to create the best possible life for everyone without exception. What do you mean by the word? The Biblical interpretation of the word seems to be inflicting suffering grossly out of proportion to the mistake simply to enforce rules that are not clearly expressed and serve no real purpose.


Tom

Columbus

I have read many posts by RBAC. He better represents the teachings of Jesus than most of the self described Christians on this forum. Much of what he says contradicts traditional christian teaching. But he upholds the ethical teachings of Jesus. Most christians don't. Traditional christian teaching advocates christian theology and pagan ethics.

Tom

Aetas

For the concept of "god" to survive it was forced to change from the old style hebrew gods of not necessarily good or evil but just GOD to a more loving god so the spread of the religion could continue.

Killer Mike

I remember as a child growing up in a fundy home I always thought this to be a little too absurd to believe. I mean God created the situation in the first place. He created hell, Satan, and man knowing he would sin (he had to since he knows everything). I would also tend to think there must be a better way to "forgive our sins". A human sacrifice? :Cheeky:

h2o4life_200

Columbus-
I have to head off to work for the day so I dont have enough time to answer your post now but I will have something for you tonight. Meanwhile, everyone enjoy the weekend.

h2o4life_200

Tom-
I believe that the word 'justice' is often misused and made by people to be treated as more ambiguous than it truly is. We all have a sense of justice built into us. For example; when we are children, and a toy is taken away from us, then we take it back by all means necessary to retribute that which was taken from us. Now the example of a child getting a linkin log stolen is much different than when we talk about sin and it begins to vear off into a philosophical territory. I felt it appropriate to consult a book to try to better answer the question of what is the Biblical use of the word justice. I have a book of compilations of original writings from all of the great minds of our times old and new. From Plato to Twain and Russell. In the preface to the section on justice I read this exerpt:
"Philosophers generally begin the pursuit of justice by distinguishing between retributive and distributive justice, two related but distinct forms of the same basic concept. Retributive justice is concerned primarily with theories of appropriate punishment for the crime, from the Old Testament injunction of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, to the more commonly expressed rule, let the punishment fit the crime. By contrast, distributive justice is a broader undertaking, primarily concerned with two leading themes: 1 to describe the ideal state; and 2 to explain the moral basis of political obligations and rights."
I believe that this begins to address what exactly the Biblical meaning of justice is. The quote touches on the Old Testament ideology but leaves it at its retributive properties. To better understand Biblical justice we must look at the context in which it is being applied to. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Israelites encountered many hardships and still lived according to the Old Covenant that was established between them and God at Sinai with the two stone tablets know popularly as the Ten Commandments. However, the use of justice in the case of the life and death of Jesus must be adjusted because the sacraficing of the Lamb of God aka Christ, led to the establishment of the New Covenant between God and his people. It no longer was that you were held captive to the burden of your sins because Jesus died so that we may live if we only believe in him. (starting to sound strangely like John 3:16)
In Romans 8:3 it says: The law of Moses could not save us, becuase of our sinful nature. But God put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his own son in a human body like ours, except that ours are sinful. God destroyed sin's control over us by giving his son as a sacrafice for our sins.
Now it is important to address the issue of the absolute seriousness of sin to God. We are not talking about stealing lollipops from the general store, we are talking about not submitting our lives to the laws that God revealed to us in the scriptures and the Old and New Covenant. To those who are unbelievers the concept of sin is a bit strange or perhaps even a little overplayed in its seriousness. The fact of the matter is that this is what the beleif is all about. God layed down the law and he expects us to follow it. (Here is where I will try to address the concept of original sin also.) In the beginning and for always afterward we have had revealed to us by God what is and is not acceptable by his laws. In Eden, it has very little to do with the fact that the tree was 'ill placed' in the Garden. God did not just create little beings that didn't sin and always glorified him by not sinning, he created imperfect beings that glorified him not by just not sinning, but by having the option to sin and they still chose God. Another example would be simply put that if you have a dog and you want it to come to you, you do not want it to be obedient simply because it wants food. You would prefer to have a dog that wishes to please you and that is the source of its obedience. Simply put, God is more glorified by our choosing him. The reason that Jesus was made to die was that sin is deathly important. Romans also says that "the wages of sin is death." His establishment of the New Covenant is of unprecedented proportions to the rest of the Bible, that is why you hear so often the recitation of John 3:16. It is in essence our ticket to heaven. :thumbs:

EssEff

The best interpretation I ever heard came from some Bible-thumping animal control officers I knew in Texas. It goes like this:

Before Christ, animals were sacrificed to appease god. Jesus took on the role of the "sacrificial lamb" to substitute for the animals. So not only were all the people who "believeth in him" spared eternal damnation, animals were spared as well. It was the first time I ever thought of that passage as having any compassion in it.

Now... as to whether you have to believe in jesus to be saved when simply believing in God should have sufficed... :rolling: Just plain silly! People already believed in God. Why should believing in the supposed son have anything to do with it?

I prefer the idea of God saying "hey, stop killing those defenseless animals! Here, kill off my son the egomaniac and leave the animals alone!"

darwinbaby

I was raised Roman Catholic, and to be honest, I never asked that question. If I had, I'd've been told, no doubt, that this was the WILL OF GOD, and that one does not question the WILL OF GOD, for a mere human cannot fathom the WILL OF GOD. That was the usual answer my CCD and Youth Group teachers had for my questions.
It might make more sense if you look at it in conjunction with other mythologies. Many of them have the resurrection/King Stag story to bring (sometimes quite literally) new blood into the old, often in relation to the seasons. Perhaps the early Christians, unlike the Antient Aegyptians, had an aversion to having their god hacked to bits before resurrection (tho' if I recall aright, Osiris had a better welcome home party). Or, perhaps, YHWH couldn't bear to be outdone by Abraham? Who knows?
(Maybe there is a reason that I don't understand the WILL OF GOD -- it just doesn't make sense. )