Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 01-10-2004, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by Magus55
God the Father can't be in the precense of sin.

So after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they were still not sinful? Why did he throw them out of the garden then? That's very mean of him.

Yes they were. Who said God the Father was the one in the Garden?

Magus55 · 01-10-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
To someone raised outside the Christian culture it does not make sense why the death of one innocent should wash away the sins of all other men.
I myself did not realise how absurd it actually sounds until I had to explain it to a bunch of teenagers who just statred at me blankly.

Because that innocent happens to be the most valuable being in all existence.

Infidelettante · 01-10-2004, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infidelettante
Just how Magus did the goal become the righteousness of God? The law did not equate to the righteousness of God. Nowhere in the OT is the requirement found that people attain the righteousness of God. This doctrine was not only unheard of until Paul it is unthinkable until Paul. When was it revealed that the standard to which human were to be held was Gods righteousness?

Magus reply
God commanded that we be righteous by faith and following the law. He said that to Abraham.

Infidelettante reply

�Genesis15:6 And he believed in the Lord: and he counted it to him for righteousness.� God then rewards Abraham for his righteousness with the Abrahamic Covenant which was the grant of the land which was to become the Hebrew state.

The passage says nothing about his righteousness getting Abraham into heaven. Nor does it say Abraham�s righteousness was God�s righteousness. Abraham�s reward was the inheritance of the land, not eternal life.

Quote:

Is this the standard because God�s righteousness does not allow sin in his presence? But this is a lie. God lived for thirty years in the presence of sin. Why could he not have lived in the presence of sin as Jesus forever? Would this not have been the greater sacrifice? Greater even than taking on the worlds sin for a few hours.

God the Father can't be in the precense of sin. Jesus was human, and therefore could. And if Jesus didn't die, who would have saved humanity?

So there is some question as to the proper understanding of the Hypostatic union? Is Jesus less God for being man? Can one part of God bear what the other part can not? Is your God so divided?

If Jesus was no less God for being for being a man and no less a man for being God and If Jesus is God as God the Father is God and if Jesus and the Father are the same God then to say that God the Father is fundamentally different from God the Son is to say nothing can be known of God. If your God can not tolerate sin he can not tolerate sin in any of his persons. If your God can tolerate sin in the person of the Son it can be tolerated by the person of the Father.

As to who would save humanity, if your God can tolerate sin ~as we have seen he can~ then humanity is in no need of salvation for it has never been able to have been separated from God by sin.

Quote:

Would it not have been the greater sacrifice for your God to live veiled in flesh among the poor and the hungry? Would it not have been the greater sacrifice for your God to remain among the lepers and the lame? Would it not have been the greater sacrifice for your God to remain among the fallen women and the demon possessed?

Why does John 3:16 not read �For God so loved the world that he stayed and he healed it, and fed it, and freed it, and he raised it from the dead.�

Sure Jesus could have stayed here and healed the lame, fed the hungry etc., but who would have payed for our sins? How would we ever be reconciled with God the Father?

Had your God stayed there would be no lame and no hungry. There would be no war and no disease. There would be no dead to enter your God�s Hell. As we have seen there could be no sin to send them there.

Quote:

No, the trouble is not that we don�t understand how horrible it was for Jesus. Rather we understand how horrible it has been without Jesus. Your God sacrificed humanity on the altar of his own petty ego. He could live among us still. What your God could do for thirty years he could do for thirty million.

And had He stayed on Earth, people would have still broken the law, sinned, and rejected Him, but this time, ALL of humanity would be lost. There would be no one to pay the penalty for sin and bear the sins of the world so that we could be saved. Sure, there would be a lot of healthy and cured people, but we would still all be lost.

How small is your God. How helpless is your God. How pitiless is your God. How cruel is your God. None of these are questions. They are accusations. Your God could not find a way to reconcile himself to his own creation without consigning vast numbers of the very best of it to eternal fire. That too is an accusation. Your God, who can speak universes into existence can not say �I forgive you everything, only be with me forever and let me bathe you in my love.� This too is an accusation.

Quote:

But, your God chose a path that led to the eternal torture of billions of beings he professed to love. The problem is that your God chose the easy, quick way out and does not seem to care that it is his own creation that suffers. Your God set in motion a vast concentration camp complete with ovens at the end and blames the inmates for their fate.

No, God chose the only path to save humanity. But He only opened the door and made it possible. Its up to us to walk through it.

For a God there is no such thing as an only path. Your god is no God. Your god is the demiurge, the pretender, and the false face of a thousand lies. To those of us who search out that which is hidden he smells of death and corruption. The Gnostics knew. And we know. Now you know.

JT

Amaleq13 · 01-11-2004, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
To someone raised outside the Christian culture it does not make sense why the death of one innocent should wash away the sins of all other men.

Let me assure you that it is recognized as ridiculous even to those of us raised within the Christian culture. At least those of us who value rational thought.

mjbeam · 01-11-2004, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
The sacrificial system was at the core of Judaism. This was the method in which sins were redeemed. They were to bring the best of their flock. The more perfect the sacrificial lamb, the more redemptive value it had.

The gospels depict that Jesus was crucified on passover, at the time when passover lambs were slaughtered. If you look at early Christian iconography, Jesus is usually depicted as a lamb.

Well, it sounds to me like the sheep may have written the new testament. "Psst, Jesus is the Lamb of God, pass it on."

Queen of Swords · 01-11-2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Magus55
Yes they were. Who said God the Father was the one in the Garden?

Who said that Jesus was the one? If this is the argument you are making, please show bible verses to this effect, plus some evidence that it's actually Jesus's backside that Moses saw.

Queen of Swords · 01-11-2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Magus55
Because that innocent happens to be the most valuable being in all existence.

More valuable than his father and his father's ghost?

Mageth · 01-13-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by the_cave
[B]Well...actually, I believe the answer is indeed yes, believe it or not. You see it has to do with the trinity...at which point I admit the discussion can become somewhat bizarre.

Definitely bizarre.

In a nutshell, traditional Christian theology states that Christ, i.e. the second person of God, did indeed absolutely die on the cross.

That's not my understanding of "traditional" Christian theology. "Traditional" Christian theology teaches that, upon the corporal death of Jesus on the Cross, Christ's spirit was immediately with the Father in Heaven until the resurrection (when the Christ spirit was reunited with the new body). Straight from the dying body on the cross back to the Father. "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" and all that. That's been my understanding of the general consensus, anyway.

"Traditional" Christian theology also teaches that spirits can't die; only the physical body is subjected to death by sin. Therefore, only the physical body of Jesus could die on the cross.

And, in any case, you cannot say that Christ the God "absolutely died" on the Cross, as I see no possibility of recovery from absolute death.

So yes, god died. I guess that means the sentences "God did not die" and "God died" are both true.

That's simply not possible.

God the Trinity did not die like the rest of us do--but God the Son did. What can I say--that's the Trinity for ya...I personally find it an interesting way of conceptualizing things, even if others find it immensely baffling nonsense.

Baffling nonsense, indeed.

It's true he was resurrected later--some Christians say he knew this would happen, others say he didn't. I say he didn't, and I agree it seems like it would be much less impressive if he did.

As others have pointed out, Jesus' purported words indicate that he had foreknowledge that he would be resurrected.

Starboy · 01-13-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkpeter
Anyone heard a better explaination as to the value of Jesus' crucifixion?

Jesus had to die. If he had lived people would have seen that he was nothing special. He would have grown old, gray and bald with love handles, a pot belly bad eye sight and hearing. But if he dies then people can make him out to be way more than he actually was.

Starboy

Hawkpeter · 01-13-2004, 05:52 PM

I get it Starboy.... he's been "immortalised" just like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. Yeah, images of an obese Budda have kept me away from that for years. Doesn't matter how happy he's supposed to look.

"Traditional" Christian theology also teaches that spirits can't die; only the physical body is subjected to death by sin. Therefore, only the physical body of Jesus could die on the cross."

- Mageth

Mageth I think you have nutshelled my whole dilemma here. The impressive thing I would have thought about a God is that he is indeed a omnipotent spirit. I can't get past that the crucifixion is the death of just one more person. I can't see the sacrifice here, perhaps symbolic to the early Jewish religion and culture but not to this gentile.

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

01-11-2004, 09:48 AM	#66
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Magus55 Yes they were. Who said God the Father was the one in the Garden? Who said that Jesus was the one? If this is the argument you are making, please show bible verses to this effect, plus some evidence that it's actually Jesus's backside that Moses saw.

01-11-2004, 09:49 AM	#67
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Magus55 Because that innocent happens to be the most valuable being in all existence. More valuable than his father and his father's ghost?

01-13-2004, 04:22 PM	#68
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by the_cave [B]Well...actually, I believe the answer is indeed yes, believe it or not. You see it has to do with the trinity...at which point I admit the discussion can become somewhat bizarre. Definitely bizarre. In a nutshell, traditional Christian theology states that Christ, i.e. the second person of God, did indeed absolutely die on the cross. That's not my understanding of "traditional" Christian theology. "Traditional" Christian theology teaches that, upon the corporal death of Jesus on the Cross, Christ's spirit was immediately with the Father in Heaven until the resurrection (when the Christ spirit was reunited with the new body). Straight from the dying body on the cross back to the Father. "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" and all that. That's been my understanding of the general consensus, anyway. "Traditional" Christian theology also teaches that spirits can't die; only the physical body is subjected to death by sin. Therefore, only the physical body of Jesus could die on the cross. And, in any case, you cannot say that Christ the God "absolutely died" on the Cross, as I see no possibility of recovery from absolute death. So yes, god died. I guess that means the sentences "God did not die" and "God died" are both true. That's simply not possible. God the Trinity did not die like the rest of us do--but God the Son did. What can I say--that's the Trinity for ya...I personally find it an interesting way of conceptualizing things, even if others find it immensely baffling nonsense. Baffling nonsense, indeed. It's true he was resurrected later--some Christians say he knew this would happen, others say he didn't. I say he didn't, and I agree it seems like it would be much less impressive if he did. As others have pointed out, Jesus' purported words indicate that he had foreknowledge that he would be resurrected.

01-13-2004, 05:52 PM	#70
Hawkpeter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 43	I get it Starboy.... he's been "immortalised" just like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. Yeah, images of an obese Budda have kept me away from that for years. Doesn't matter how happy he's supposed to look. "Traditional" Christian theology also teaches that spirits can't die; only the physical body is subjected to death by sin. Therefore, only the physical body of Jesus could die on the cross." - Mageth Mageth I think you have nutshelled my whole dilemma here. The impressive thing I would have thought about a God is that he is indeed a omnipotent spirit. I can't get past that the crucifixion is the death of just one more person. I can't see the sacrifice here, perhaps symbolic to the early Jewish religion and culture but not to this gentile.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.