Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-07-2011, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I suppose so, though it still doesn't sit well. It seems like conditional freedom, which is no freedom at all.

I'd say all freedoms are conditioned.

Prison freedom: you can go anywhere in the yard you like.
Burn Notice freedom: you can do whatever you like, but you have no papers so you can't work.
Educational freedom: you can study whatever you like, as long as it is on the curriculum, you follow the preferred methods and you have the correct prerequisites.
School freedom: you can do whatever you like, as long as you realize you are just children, so no adult behavior.
Parental freedom: you can do whatever you like, but no sex or drugs or rock and roll.
Social freedom: you can do whatever the society thinks is ok.
Existence freedom: you can do whatever you can, while stuck in a specific gravitational situation, needing a specific oxygen concoction to breathe, functioning on dead life forms.
Etc.

It's really all prison freedom.

:notworthy:

judge · 09-07-2011, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andykiwi

Some thoughts I have...

Did he only redeem from the Jewish law?

Thats how he frames it. But then he's a jew.

Quote:

If so, of what consequence is that to anyone not under Jewish law?

Paul seems to try to address this in his letter to Rome (early chapters)

Quote:

If he dies for all sin because that was the God's requirement, why is it necessary for people to believe it? What difference is believing supposed to make? Did he die for sin or not?

I tend to think that our ideas of "believing" this are coloured by centuries of nutty christian thinking. Believing today means holding to some doctrinal idea.

If Pauls writing are from the time they say then "believing" entails a whiole lot more. It involves arejection of Judaism itself (in a short time anyway, after the transitional period). It involves rejecting the temple sacrifices, rejecting the exclusiveness of being a jew.
It involves the idea of people from different races and backgrounds being able to worship together.
It involves men being able to access their own judgements and higher attributes without having some priesthood to do it for you.
For that time to follow this messainic idea with its notion that temple sacrifices are becoming obsolete, might have been more radical then we at times suspect today

Quote:

Seriously though, I think the doctrine was designed simply to free people (Jews) from the need to make animal sacrifices. "Paul" understood that that was not necessary and found a way to get people over it.

I agree. I actually didnt read this part till I had typed the above, so we probably agree on this.

Solo · 09-07-2011, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Christ died for our sins.

v.

Christ redeemed us from the Law.

I do not see these two things as being the same.

Paul clearly saw law as "unnecessary" for those who believe. They are "controlled" (synechei)
) by the "love of Christ", even when they are "insane" (εχεστεμην - 2 Cr 5:13-14). Rom 13:8-13 spells out what Paul's believed is the law's fulfilment in Christian love. It is clear that Paul considered his communities outside of any law (1 Cr 6), but evidently his followers in Corinth had trouble figuring the part of Christ sacrifice being a shield against sinning and a call to self-administering civil disputes.

Best,
Jiri

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.