inquisitive01

Just a (relevant) note: It was a "capital punishment" case based on MAN'S law at the time.

copernicus

I think that any parent who loses a child can be said to have suffered a grievous loss. But what loss did God suffer? According to the story, Jesus was resurrected and went to live in heaven with God. I'm sure that I'm missing something here, but it doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me.

And what is this business about his "only" son? I can understand where single-child parents might suffer horribly at the loss of their only child, but couldn't God have had more children if he wanted to? Would he have somehow suffered less if there had been more sons? One of the great things about being God is that you get to do anything you like. It seems to me that God had other options. Most human families that lose a child do not have the option of resurrection.

anthrosciguy

And God, being both omnipotent and omniscient, knew exactly what was going to happen, making it even less of a sacrifice. So I guess the claim is that God did something that was no sacrifice and required no effort (being God, after all), and in return, if we don't worship him in thankfulness he'll have us tortured. Not a nice guy, not as described by fundamentalists, especially.

Hobbs

I'm not sure I understand your point or why it is relevant. Does this mean that if the Jesus case weren't a capital crime based on man's law at the time that he might have gone to jail or been flogged or whatever and that would have paid for the sins of the world? Or do you mean that the whole "wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life through Christ by means of his substitutionary death" thing was based on man's law at the time? Was it because of man's law at the time that God had to require an innocent person to die in order to forgive all of us of our sins?

inquisitive01

John 3:12-21 is at least one part of the Bible that gives insight into the purpose behind God sending his Son (also called the "Son of Man") into the world.

Now, put yourself in this place:

You send your son to a place as proof and testimony of your existence (some of this proof comes AFTER your son's death at the resurrection). Your son is rejected and tried for treason (or whatever), and is ultimately sentenced to death under the current MAN'S law. He is put to death, but after a few days you raise him from the dead as further proof of your existence.

However, not all are convinced (after such a strong display) even after hearing eye-witness accounts of this from others (in the Bible, this would be the disciples, etc.). You award all who believe (and follow the teachings of) your son with everlasting, paradise-like life. However, you do not award the non-believers (who have knowledge of the existence of your son) with this life because their faith in your son's existence (and, in effect, your own existence) is lacking. One result... those who have the lack of faith do not abide by your (and your son's) teachings/messages, but even go against them.
I really don't know how else to put it. However, I think most of us would likely agree that we would not be pleased if we went through all of this trouble and some still could not bring themselves to believe the evidence of the son and believe/follow the son's example and teachings.

DramaQ

Um…. “clear�…. So clear I couldn’t even SEE it. Doesn’t matter. You say this is “my kind� of Christian. Have fun with it. Nuff said on it as it’s off topic.


I always thought cheesecake was heaven on earth. Let us pray! :love:


Hang on. Hang on. When I “put myself in this place�, do I get to be omniscient and omnipotent? And have I been around forever? And did I create this whole world and the people in it? And am I solely responsible for deciding what’s “right� and “wrong� and how I’m gonna punish those who violate my rule (de jour)?

Or am I just plain ol’ me? Who is human and prone to mistakes and can be jealous and whiney and fitful? And throw temper tantrums when things don’t go my way?

If the latter I MIGHT understand how I “would not be pleased� if I “went through all of this trouble�.

But if I get to be the FIRST guy…! If I basically have the power to make things HOWEVER I want them and they “still could not bring themselves to believe the evidence of the son and believe/follow the son's example and teachings�… Well then I really don’t have anyone to blame but myself, do I?

Doesn’t this all come back to the same thing? That the nature of this belief system (or ANY belief system) is in what its CLAIMS are. Natural, supernatural, and anything in between.

So Believers: Claim away! But don’t be so disappointed if not everyone falls over themselves believing it.

Hobbs

Ah, OK, I musunderstood you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I hope you will accept part of the blame for my misunderstanding. After all, you are presenting a very unorthodox view of Christianity, one that disagrees with the vast majority of Christians' docrtrines at least as far as I'm aware. When you are working with very unorthodox views, you probably should explain those views upfront rather than assume that others will not assume that you are coming from a conventional Christian standpoint when you present yourself as a Christian. The vast majority of Christians I am aware of say that there was something important about Jesus dying: his death was a substitutionary sacrifice for us, to pay for our sins. I was just assuming, and I think it is a justified assumption, that you followed this standard Christian orthodoxy.

Actually, off the top of my head, I can't remember talking with any Christians who said that Jesus' death was merely coincidental and meant nothing for his message or his mission, that he could just as well have lived a full life and died of natural causes or perhaps ascended directly into heaven without even dying at all (the latter would certainly provide strong evidence of who he was), and all we really have to do is to believe who he is and obey his teachings. I've occasionally read accounts of some views like that, but they are in a very tiny minority, and just about all the Christians I've heard respond to such views disagree with them. After all, Paul's whole point is that we can't possibly do that ourselves: all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and God presented Christ as a sacrificial attonement. It's all right there in Romans. If you call yourself a Christian and don't offer any further explanation or qualification, I'm naturally going to assume that you believe that. So I hope you will pardon me for misunderstanding you and not realizing that you do not agree with this doctrine.

So then, do you agree with me that accepting the sacrifice of an innocent person in the place of the guilty person is a horrible injustice that no good god would ever accept, much less offer?

For further clarification, do you think that Paul's books belong in the Bible? You disagree with his theology, and you appeal to the Gospels for a different theology, so it seems to me reasonable to conclude that you must think Paul's letters, or at least some of them, don't represent God's or Jesus's teachings and don't belong in the Bible. But I want to ask you about this to make sure.

And if I may, I have another question I'd like you to clarify. You say that we need both to believe who Jesus is and to follow his teachings and example. But what about those who think he had some good teachings and agree with and follow them, but who do not believe that he was actually God's literal son (or God Himself; maybe I should also ask you to state your view of the trinity and the nature of Christ)? Or what about those who believe that Jesus is God('s son) but who don't always obey?



Oh, by the way, the claim that we have eyewitness testimony for this stuff is a very dubious and unsubstantiated claim. The gospels are not signed, it is only tradition of unknown origin that assigns them to some of the disciples and their associates. They are not written as eyewitness first-hand accounts, as, say, Paul's letters are (where he talks about "I went there and we did this"). Two of the four gospels are not even alleged to be eyewitness accounts (Mark and Luke), and Matthew, supposedly a disciple, used Mark as his main source rather than his own memory. If he needed to jog his memory, why not ask Peter directly, or at least use Peter's gospel, rather than rely on Mark's account of Peter's memory. For that matter, why don't Christians accept Peter's gospel? Why do they accept Mark's account of Peter's experiences and reject Peter's own account of his experiences? Or why don't they use Thomas's gospel? Are the latter forgeries? And you are certain the former are not because ...

Xrikcus

Well, if it was that important to him he should have made it obvious beyond all doubt, rather than having to believe a friend of a friend of a friend in which situation people are prone to not believe in full. Is it really that much of a surprise people didn't (and even more so, don't) believe? It has nothing to do with being evil, just lack of evidence.

inquisitive01

Let's say He had made it more obvious. For example, He could have caused an earthquake or a strong wind appear each and every time Jesus entered into a new city or somone's house (or anywhere). Since all of this would have still happened way before our time, you would STILL have to rely on word of mouth.

Sven

As suggested many times before in this forum: Why not write something in bold letters on the moon - such as the ten commandments?

Edited to add: And then we most likely would have some "word of mouth" from many sources outside the bible about something strange going on. But since this has not happened, we have none. Get it: We would indeed have more reason to believe this way.