Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-11-2003, 09:31 AM

It's not for me to judge, but we are assured "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall obtain mercy."

Rad

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 12:25 PM

Christian,

Quote:

That doesn't make sense. "Scripture may or may not be truthful, roll the dice." is a different concept than "Scripture is definitely wrong on this issue."

You're right; I worded that poorly. I should have said,

"Can I assume, then, if you were to accept the fact that the scripture is errant, it would no longer be possible to avoid the possibility that a literal Adam & Eve did not exist?"

Quote:

No. If God allowed sin to go unpunished, then He would not be "perfectly just." Christ's death is the only solution that enables God to be both merciful and just without contradiction.

To what higher authority is God subject to here? If God is all-powerful, why does he need to be "enabled" to do anything? Furthermore, if God himself defines what is "just", what is stopping him from defining justice in a way that could accept a different "solution"???

Quote:

Because Jesus is God. Jesus was the omipotent, omniscient, soveriegn creator God become man. The life of such a man is of infinite intrensic worth. In short, Jesus' life is infinitely more intrensically valuable than mine is, therefore His death was infinitely greater payment for sin in God's eyes than my death would be.

This strikes me as sort of "through-the-looking-glass" jabber-wocky. Even if I were to assume your premise of Jesus' life being of "infinite intrinsic worth", then it would still only be a "sacrifice" if he were to lose it permanently . Losing or giving up something *temporarily* doesn't really fit the definition of sacrifice , does it?

Quote:

I would say "faith", but in that word I would be implying a hundred other things that might not be obvious. Suffice it to say that you are either "in Christ" or you are not. And there are scriptural tests to tell you your true spiritual condition.

Hmmm... that kind of makes my point for me... "things that might not be obvious". Not much of a "perfect plan" if it's not clearly spelled out, eh? And as far as these "scriptural tests" go, if it's so dang simple then why is it that the multitudes of denominations of Christianity have never been able to come to a concensus on *exactly* how salvation is attained?

Quote:

If you have any specific questions on the doctrine of the Trinity, I'll take a shot at answering them for you.

That subject is a doozy. I'll see if I can formulate my thoughts on that and get back to it...

Mageth · 03-11-2003, 12:36 PM

Because Jesus is God. Jesus was the omipotent, omniscient, soveriegn creator God become man. The life of such a man is of infinite intrensic worth. In short, Jesus' life is infinitely more intrensically valuable than mine is, therefore His death was infinitely greater payment for sin in God's eyes than my death would be.

Ahh, the myth of man-god's "death" is resurrected again.

If man-god truly died, why did it reportedly, a couple of days later, pop up not just "as good as new" but "better than ever", walking through doors, suddenly appearing to people, eating fish, and eventually flying off to heaven?

Hint: that's not dead in my book.

Old Man · 03-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
The most important verses for Christians to understand say nothing about Jesus?

They say everything about Jesus. Jesus message from the beginning was to put God's words into practice. That was exactly what the Pharisees failed to do.

the_cave · 03-11-2003, 07:06 PM

Yeah, I'm afraid there's obviously no consensus definition of "Christian" by those who call themselves one. I mean, what about the third-world cults that mix Christianity with local beliefs? Do they count? In fact, it seems that the atheists label people in-or-out on these boards as much as the Christians do! So it seems even the atheists have their own definition...

That doesn't mean there isn't a proper definition--I just can't think of one right now. Perhaps you're a Christian in the very loose sense of the term if you adhere to at least one important teaching (maybe a teaching that a majority of Christians hold to be important?) of the Gospels, and you acknowledge the Gospels as at least one valid source of those teachings (even if it isn't the source you get it from.) Obviously that could include a lot of people who hold beliefs that contradict the other teachings of the Gospels (whatever they may be...)

Obviously, this won't really do as a "real" definition, but there will be endless debate about the "real definition". I could give you my version, but I think I'll stay out of the argument for now.

It kind of depends on what sort of a definition you're looking for. In a sense, you might as well ask "who is a philosopher?" or "who is a European?" or "who speaks English?" I could give you a definition for each, as well as for a Christian, but I would be met with a thousand protests. I'm hard-pressed to tell people they aren't a Christian if they think they are (well, to their face, anyway...) I call myself a "Christian", and so do billions of others. You can take your pick, using your powers of discernment and reason. Choose wisely, I guess is my best, and only, advice.

But I retain the right to dispute your choice

Radorth · 03-11-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

The life of such a man is of infinite intrensic worth. In short, Jesus' life is infinitely more intrensically valuable than mine is, therefore His death was infinitely greater payment for sin in God's eyes than my death would be.

This is pretty silly logic, if God knew he would raise him from the dead, make him King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Jesus seems convinced of it as well. But I suppose if you think of "life" as some sort of temporal fleshly existence, you would call that logic.

Rad

Radorth · 03-11-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

So it seems even the atheists have their own definition...

Yeah, it's basically "anybody who says so."

Including Hitler apparently.

Rad

Fiach · 03-11-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
[B]People are always claiming that, but I've yet to see any evidence. The first direct allusion to hell that I am aware of is:

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

"their fire be quenched," is too vague. I could be gastro-esophageal reflux (heart burn). Fire can be zeal. It is to vague to call it Hell for sure.

How is this connected to Zoroastrianism. I am sure that the Psalms contain many indirect references too. The doctrine of hell was certainly widespread amongst the Jews by BC160, and rose to prominence after the depradations of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Yes, Zoroastrianism invented the Hell concept. It was the religion of Persian Achaemenids and adopted by the successor Seleucid Kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes. Ahriman or Angra mangu became the final model for Satan in Judeo-Christian Mythology. Hell and Satan were probably first introduced by the Persians when they returned the Jews to Palestine. I don't remember the exact date but it was somewhere in the 3rd Century BC or more likely the 4th.

Not that I am aware of. The gnostic churches were hardly an evolution, merely an outright departure. Roman Catholicism became inherently gnostic - the orthodox church replaced by a gnostic anti-church. The Anglican church is such a bag of chalk and cheese that you can't easily characterize ALL of it, though you can view women priests as being evidence of rampant gnosticism.

Don't forget the original Jesus Cult, the Ebioites, who accepted Jesus as Messiah but not a god. They were the majority until long after Paul merged Mithra with Jesus during his 14 year exile in Tarsus. He added other elements of Eastern Mystery Cults to weave the mosaic we now call Christianity. In the 2nd Century, Arian were dominant. Preached by Arius, they held that Jesus was a created god by the High God JHWH. Meanwhile Tertullian, a North African scholar and expert on Egyptian antiquities invented or resurrected the Trinity. I comes from the Wall Murals in the Holy of Holies at the Temple in Luxor, Egypt. It has Kneph the Holy Spirit of the Egyptians announcing to a virgin that she would give birth to god's son. Next mural shows the virgin giving birth to Horus or Aten (Sun God) and son of God the Father Amun. In the final mural it has the virgin with the baby Aten in a manger attended by shepherds and visited by three kings with gifts. In the background is Amun the Father and on the other side Kneph (also called Ra) the Holy Spirit. The Egyptian Trinity was Father Amun, Son Horus or Aten, and the Holy Spirit Knepf or Ra. The Egyptians actually called Knepf "the Holy Spirit." That was 4000 years ago. The christian Trinity is clearly a plagiarised version of the old Egyptian trinity, and not Judaic in origin.

My rabbit is a Christian too.

He would have to be a Fundamentalist though.

Paine's arguments are old hat - a boring cavil which proves nothing.

They are not as old hat as the Bible which he so brilliantly debunked. Paine gave no admiration for the horrid O.T. atrocities and barmy superstitions. That is why after the Revolution, the fundies recovered power and began the process of rolling back the Bill of Rights, and branded Paine a heathen. I think he was the greatest American (British born) thinker in American History, yes smarter than Jefferson.

Like the church, but with all those millions of asylum seekers heading up your way, isn't the scenery is likely to change?

There is some antagonism with the English buying up land up here. We will achieve independence, and charge all English with reparations taxes for almost 500 years of colonial exploitation. It will cost them. We Scots don't forget or forgive easily.

Fiach

Christian · 03-12-2003, 01:25 AM

Darwin,

Quote:

Does this have anybody else scratching their head? Because it sounds like Christian is saying that before Jesus died, God was not able to be both merciful and just.

Don't get wrapped around timing. If God is merely omniscient then timing is a moot point. I'm saying that the atonement is a required logical precident for God being merciful.

God cannot contradict Himself. By His very nature God is just. Simply letting people off the hook is unjust, so doing so would be self contradictory for God. Like a round square.

But with the atonement justice has already been conditionally satisfied. Letting people off the hook because the punishment has already occured is just.

Therefore, the atonement is the means by which God can be perfectly just and also be merciful at the same time. It is no longer a self contradiction because of the atonement.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-12-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

"Can I assume, then, if you were to accept the fact that the scripture is errant, it would no longer be possible to avoid the possibility that a literal Adam & Eve did not exist?"

Offhand, yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. If God allowed sin to go unpunished, then He would not be "perfectly just." Christ's death is the only solution that enables God to be both merciful and just without contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To what higher authority is God subject to here?[/quote]

Himself. His own nature. He cannot be self contradictory.

Quote:

If God is all-powerful, why does he need to be "enabled" to do anything?

Because being all powerful does not mean that you can be self contradictory. A square cannot be round no matter how powerful it is. If it was round, it would no longer possess the attributes of a square.

For example, "it is impossible for God to lie." (Heb 6:18) This is not because of any lack of strength or power. It is because lying would be self contradictory for God. God is by very nature Truth. If Truth lies, then it is no longer truth at all.

Omnipotence does not mean that God has the power to become nonsense. It means that His power and strength are infinite. He cannot contradict His own nature ... Who He is ... because self contradictions are nonsense no matter how you slice it. It is not because of any lack in power.

Quote:

Furthermore, if God himself defines what is "just", what is stopping him from defining justice in a way that could accept a different "solution"???

Although I can see both sides of that philosophical argument, my conclusion is that justice is not an arbitrary decision of God. He has His reasons. He has chosen to be good, not to create good. It is His nature to make that choice, fortunately.

Quote:

This strikes me as sort of "through-the-looking-glass" jabber-wocky. Even if I were to assume your premise of Jesus' life being of "infinite intrinsic worth", then it would still only be a "sacrifice" if he were to lose it permanently . Losing or giving up something *temporarily* doesn't really fit the definition of sacrifice , does it?

Anything only given up temporarily is not a sacrifice??? Where do you get that idea?

I'm currently in the U.S. Army stationed in South Korea. I am on a one year unaccompanied tour, which means that my family is back in the states. By your logic, I'm not really making any sacrifice for the military, since it's only a temporary hardship tour.

With all due respect, Bull Hockey.

Gotta run. Be back later.

Respectfully,

Christian

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

03-11-2003, 09:31 AM	#51
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	It's not for me to judge, but we are assured "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall obtain mercy." Rad

03-11-2003, 12:36 PM	#53
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Because Jesus is God. Jesus was the omipotent, omniscient, soveriegn creator God become man. The life of such a man is of infinite intrensic worth. In short, Jesus' life is infinitely more intrensically valuable than mine is, therefore His death was infinitely greater payment for sin in God's eyes than my death would be. Ahh, the myth of man-god's "death" is resurrected again. If man-god truly died, why did it reportedly, a couple of days later, pop up not just "as good as new" but "better than ever", walking through doors, suddenly appearing to people, eating fish, and eventually flying off to heaven? Hint: that's not dead in my book.

03-11-2003, 07:06 PM	#55
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	Yeah, I'm afraid there's obviously no consensus definition of "Christian" by those who call themselves one. I mean, what about the third-world cults that mix Christianity with local beliefs? Do they count? In fact, it seems that the atheists label people in-or-out on these boards as much as the Christians do! So it seems even the atheists have their own definition... That doesn't mean there isn't a proper definition--I just can't think of one right now. Perhaps you're a Christian in the very loose sense of the term if you adhere to at least one important teaching (maybe a teaching that a majority of Christians hold to be important?) of the Gospels, and you acknowledge the Gospels as at least one valid source of those teachings (even if it isn't the source you get it from.) Obviously that could include a lot of people who hold beliefs that contradict the other teachings of the Gospels (whatever they may be...) Obviously, this won't really do as a "real" definition, but there will be endless debate about the "real definition". I could give you my version, but I think I'll stay out of the argument for now. It kind of depends on what sort of a definition you're looking for. In a sense, you might as well ask "who is a philosopher?" or "who is a European?" or "who speaks English?" I could give you a definition for each, as well as for a Christian, but I would be met with a thousand protests. I'm hard-pressed to tell people they aren't a Christian if they think they are (well, to their face, anyway...) I call myself a "Christian", and so do billions of others. You can take your pick, using your powers of discernment and reason. Choose wisely, I guess is my best, and only, advice. But I retain the right to dispute your choice

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.