Photocrat

You say that like Jesus Christ is two different people.

Sapient

For Geotheo, and his belief that only atheists believe in a sadistic god....

<a href="http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1102/carnagequiz.html" target="_blank">http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1102/carnagequiz.html</a>

Furtermore there is a guy currently posting at the AN that may open your mind a little about theists believing in a sadistic God. The book is still out on his legitimacy, but he certainly seems to be legit. He's a catholic named Leo Volont... the guy is a trip:
<a href="http://www.thedeepdark.com/atheism/board/viewtopic.php?p=11005#11005" target="_blank">"God isn't trying to scare anybody. He doesn't have to. He just kills everybody who doesn't agree with Him. When Our Lady and the Saints try to warn people, they are not trying to scare anybody — they are just trying to warn people. But me? I don't care. So I'm just trying to scare you. But God? Just as soon kill you as look at you. He's way beyond caring what people think. Do you care what ants and roaches think? Well now you might have some insight into what thinks about you. So don't worry about God and the Church trying to ‘attract' you. The Saints are concerned out of pure love and mercy, but if you think they have some agenda, then please feel free to burn in Hell." </a>


The Un-sadistic God represented accuratly in the story of <a href="http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=11" target="_blank">Noah</a>.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sapient ]</p>

Kenny

Synaesthesia,

That’s not what I have said. I offered an explanation of God’s action in the atonement that appealed, not to a free floating arbitrary decision on God’s part, but a decision grounded in God’s motivations based in God’s character. With respect to all other instances of personal action, we typically regard an explanation in terms of a volitional act based in motive and character to be a sufficient explanatory stopping point. So, why would such an explanation not be a sufficient explanatory stopping point with respect to God?

And, I think we can look deeper. We can ask more questions about God’s motivation and God’s purposes in the atonement. In fact, theologians write entire treatises on it. I’ve only barely scratched the surface of the doctrine in terms of the richness of the Christian tradition concerning it – the substitutionary aspect I have described, though very important, is only one of many ways that the Scripture describes the atonement and only one of many ways that theologians have expounded on what Scripture has to say about it.

As we dive deeper and deeper into the doctrine, we find more and more. At some points in our questioning, however, we may hit brick walls; we may run into some seemingly intractable mysteries, but such is no different than any other area of inquiry the finite mind undertakes. Every worldview has its intractable mysteries and its explanatory stopping points – without exception. In Christianity, however, there is something more satisfying than knowing all the answers – knowing, instead, the One who holds all of them and coming to know Him more and more as He reveals more and more to the understanding.

The language of “torture and threats” is somewhat loaded here, since we are speaking in terms of just penalties for evil acts. That being said, God cannot be just and not just at the same time (even God is subject to the restrictions of the law of non-contradiction). God’s standards of justice are not arbitrary functions of his will, either. They are grounded in His own eternal nature. God cannot simply make something just or unjust by divine fiat.

Whatever God does is good even if we, in our finitude and lack of ability to see all ends, do not understand how it is good; that is true. But, it does not follow that God’s plans are arbitrarily defined as good simply because God enacts them. Rather, God enacts them because they are good, and God’s standards of goodness are rooted in His own eternal and unchanging nature.

Strange, since I have found Christianity to be the only philosophically satisfying explanation of the universe and of the human situation available. No matter, however, because the message of the cross is not first and foremost a philosophy – rather it pronounces God’s judgment over all human philosophies and human self-striving. The cross is first and foremost a diagnosis of the human condition and its only cure. Greater than my understanding of it, is my understanding of my need for it. I am a sinner, estranged from God by my sin, and I am in desperate need of God’s forgiveness so that I might be reconciled to Him -- not merely to escape judgment, but to be brought back into a right relationship with that which alone ultimately matters and that which alone can bring ultimate fulfillment to my soul. If the Doctor prescribes medicine to me for a fatal illness for which there is no other cure, I will take it, whether I understand how it works or not.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

That’s a very convenient hermeneutic, Amos, since it allows you to make the Scriptures say whatever you want them to say. If Paul was preaching such a falsehood so that people might become wise, then why are you detracting from Paul’s purpose by exposing what he sought to conceal?

In any case, the message of “Christ crucified” is not religion – it is the Gospel. It is the very same Gospel held dear to the hearts of all God’s people, whether Protestant or Catholic, since the Gospel was first preached. The message you proclaim, though it makes use of Christian terms, pours completely different meanings into the words of Scripture and has nothing to do with the authentic Gospel handed down to the Church. Paul himself resolved to know nothing but “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (I Corinthians 2:2). You would be wise to follow his example.

God Bless,
Kenny

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8)

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

All such evils are fundamentally rooted in the human heart’s rebellion against God – the human heart’s turning away from worship of the Ultimate Good to worship of the self. Since the cross deals with this root problem and provides the ground of reconciliation between humanity and God, it cuts to the very root of all these evils. That does not mean that they will all come to an immediate end, however.

Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is like mustard seed – a very small thing at first which eventually becomes very large and engulfs the whole world. Right now God’s kingdom is present in the world as a mustard seed through its transforming of individual hearts and individual lives -- including the hearts and lives of murders, tortures, and rapists -- and it is present in the community of God’s people on the earth through the working of God's Spirit to the extent that God's people model its ideals of love, compassion, and worship of God in spirit and in truth.

Eventually, when Christ returns in His full glory, that Kingdom, which is present in individual hearts and in the community of God’s people, will envelope the whole world and there will no longer be “any mourning, crying, or pain,” for the “old order of things [will have] passed away.”

God Bless,
Kenny

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Devilnaut

Kenny, in light of what you just posted, how do you explain statistics showing a low incidence of atheism in american prison populations? It seems that to reconcile your post with this we are forced to conclude that those who call themselves christians (or at least the ones in prison), are less likely to worship the "ultimate good" and more prone to "self worship" than atheists.


(there are of course, other possibilities: the stats could be wrong in some way or another, or prisons could be misrepresentative of the "evil" in society, though the second would be extremely difficult to argue)

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Bible Humper

Oh yeah, I'm so sure that the deity himself told his scribes that he wanted absolute authority to be given to the church authorities, and that even if you are having an epiphany or revelation you should ignore it if it goes contrary to what the church told you to believe.

Could they have inserted that passage "for the greater good"? Nah, they would never do something like that. And Jesus himself said that priests should be well paid, so after you reaffirm your loyalty make sure that you stuff the collection plate. ROFL.

Amos

One 'people' with two identities, the persona and the man. We al have a persona and if we have a persona we are not our persona.

Until we are born of God it is impossible to distinguish between these two idenities. Once we are we can see the difference and from then on we can work towards the annihilation of our persona. This confirms: "unless you are born again. . . etc.

Kenny

Well, it is difficult to really address such statistics without knowing more. How many of these individuals converted to Christianity after they went to prison, for instance? The fact that the Gospel tends to take root in the hearts of those who are most deeply aware of their need for it should be no surprise – in fact, the New Testament confirms such an expectation; the Lord did not come to “call the righteous, but to save sinners.” Furthermore, the fact that people are Christians does not mean that they do not still struggle with sin after their conversion. The mustard seed analogy applies just as much to the individual as it does to the world – sanctification is a process which begins where one is and unfolds in time. Finally, not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is a Christian – the NT confirms this as well.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

Read the verse again. God has not invested such authority in the church (“even if we") , but in the Gospel. The Gospel is God’s definitive revelation for all time concerning His saving work. Any teaching contrary to the Gospel, whether from the church or a supposed “epiphany,” is not from God.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>