Mageth

By dying, Jesus sacrificed His physical life. He did not sacrifice His existence, He sacrificed the physical human experience that we are all experiencing right now. He did not forfeit any future existance of a physical nature. He sacrificed His "temporal fleshly existence."

Right, so jesus technically did not "die", as in "cease to exist."

Jesus, like all humans, only had one shot at experiencing the temporal fleshly existence here on earth.

Being god, and omniscient, it seems he would know all about "temporal fleshly existence" without having to experience it.

BTW, since Jesus was @33 yrs old at the time, and life expectancy at the time was probably 45-50 years, he only sacrificed 1/3 of his "temporal fleshly existence". I guess that was enough, huh? (it would seem a more complete sacrifice if he'd been aborted or died at birth).

Christian

Let me caveat again that I'm no philosopher, and that I hold my opinion on this particular question loosely.

Basically I see God's nature (Who He is and His attributes) as uncaused. They simply are. God is truthful and merciful and just and righteous simply because that's what He is (and has always been and always will be). There is no prior cause and no higher cause to appeal to.

This is like asking "why does a square have 4 corners?" You could point toward whatever human observed that particular shape and called it "square" in the language of the day, but that avoids the issue. A square-like shape has four corners, regardless of who observes this fact or what label it is given. That's just the inherent nature of a square. Same with God.

God is just and righteous in the same way that square shapes have 4 corners. 4 corners is an integral, fundamental, definitional aspect of a "square." In the same way justice is an integral, fundamental, definitional aspect of the living God. If He was otherwise, then He would be something other than the thing which He is. God cannot be unjust (such as letting sin go unpunished) anymore than a square can have less than 4 corners.

Such is God's uncaused nature.

As to God's justice ... I hold (loosely) that while God is perfectly just He does not define what justice is. Justice is something that is inherently true, in the same way that math is inherently true.

The problem with understanding justice is perspective. None of us know all the factors and elements and motives involved in a specific moral scenario. Let alone in all situations. Examples of things which seem unjust on the surface but turn out to be just (or vice versa) are pretty easy to come by. That is why God will reveal all secret thoughts and expose all hidden things at the final judgment. He will explain all the factors in the situation, and noone will be able to dispute His judment of them.

God has the intellect and perspective to understand perfectly what justice is and how it should be applied to any situation. If we had the intellect and perspective He does, so would we. We would know that this action is morally wrong in the same way we know that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

Not only does He understand the inherent truth of perfect justice, He is perfectly just by nature. He makes just decisions because that's what He naturally does.

I don't think that God Himself defines what is "just." He just knows what it is and does it and points it out and sets wrongs right.

Although the idea that God Himself defines what is just is compatible with scripture. It is a valid "Christian" perspective. This is a purely philosophical question.

Which would be one reason that I have reached the conclusion I have.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mageth,

Nobody technically "dies" as in "ease to exist."

He did. But knowing all about something and personally experiencing it are two different things. And He also wanted the aspect of fellowship with us than can only be gained by becoming one of us.

I imagine that a number of people in history have willingly forfeited 1/3 of their life in order to save others. Very few have done it in order to save their enemies. That aspect of Christ’s sacrifice is very great, but not cosmic.

The thing that makes Christ’s sacrifice so great is who He was. The temporal fleshly existence of God is infinitely valuable. It’s like the difference between giving away a plain old rock and giving away a 20-carrot diamond. In both cases you are sacrificing one hard round thing about that big. But because of the intrinsic value of the item it is a much greater sacrifice to give away the diamond.

Respectfully,

Christian

Smilin

Hi COAS,
I'm relatively new here, and since I fall
into your category, what the hell, I'll jump in..




That doctrine is taught, however, digging into history uncovers some very interesting facts. Mainly, the number of times the KJV has been revised, the fact the the Apocrypha was deleted from the protestant version, and taking into consideration the difficulties in translational errors... i.e. Greek, Latin, Hebrew to English. Some of us non-traditional Christians realize these matters (among others) and don't hold to the notion that the Bible is inerrant. If it was meant to be inerrant, why wasn't it translated correctly the first time? Why would it need revising?

That's a very vague term. Perhaps your referring to the modern theological notion of Creationism versus Evolutionism. I submit we all are 'creationist' simply because we believe the Universe was created in one way or other.

Do I think Genesis is the 'literal' account of the creation? No. I do believe in a Creator, however, I can accept scientific findings on how the creation has progressed.

I leave judgement to the Creator. It is not for me to decide who (if any) receives eternal life. Besides, as a Father who TOTALLY loves my children, I find it impossible to accept a spiritual Father who doesn't view us in the same way. What about all the Native Americans who never knew Christianity? What loving Father would punish them for simply 'never knowing'???????

You raise a good point. Something definately to think and meditate on.


I know Timothy wrote of women not speeking in church. I'll have to refresh my memory on what Paul wrote. Boy, they'd freak out over today's culture..eh???? Women in the workplace, single women families, women owning property, women voting. Most don't accept the cultural teachings concerning marriage either do they? IMO, this is simply a cultural issue. Marriages are no longer arranged, women are no longer considered 'property' of their fathers or husbands. Most who read the Bible don't stop to take the time to consider the culture, religious practices, customs, etc. etc.. of the time the text was written in is all. Imagine trying to revert to the old customs of arranged marriages today?

and some of us even question the existance of a 'literal' heaven as well. (More food for thought)


You raise some interesting questions... and in my case it would be more appropriate to state: I'm interested in the diversity of theological views just as I'm interested in the diversity of different cultures.

Treacle Worshipper

Christian, I like your sense of humour.

See, we do get to be jack-in-the-boxes in the next life
Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
TW

Bree

So your definition of the word "just" is "whatever God says" - right?

Christian

I wouldn't put it that way - too simplistic. Everything He says and does IS just, but the purpose of every statement God makes is not to define justice.

For example in Jer 7:9 God says: Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"--safe to do all these detestable things?

God is describing an unjustice there.

Or when Jesus says: ""I will go and heal him." (Mt 8:7) Jesus isn't healing the Centurion's servant because it's the just thing to do. He's doing it out of compassion. It would be silly to say that statement is a definition of the concept of justice just because God said it.

Respectfully,

Christian

Fiach

And I can dispute or agree with yours. Most likely I will agree that you are Christian but not that everyone else is not.;-)

Fiach

Muad'Dib

I think that I either misunderstand your analogy, or it does not actually support your case.

Statements in mathematics are not "inherently true," they all depend on what axiomatic framework you're working in. Even 2 + 2 = 4 depends on the definitions and axioms of number theory (and it's not self-evident either--just ask most three-year-olds or the New Guinea islanders who didn't count past 3 until British colonization). For example, in modulo 2 arithmetic, 2 + 2 = 0 and in modulo 3 arithmetic, 2 + 2 = 1.

Which of these systems is "true"? Well, they're all consistent, and they're all useful at various times. Standard arithmetic will help you balance your checkbook and modulo 2 arithmetic is absolutely vital for computers to operate, for example.

Also, in any axiomatic framework there are undecidable statements--these are statements that cannot be proven, and their negations also cannot be proven. (This does not mean that they are "true but unprovable"--that's a common misunderstanding of the incompleteness theorem.) These statements can be assumed to be either true or false and each assumption will lead to a new, consistent set of axioms.

So how is justice at all like mathematics? The notion that everything can be reduced to axioms that can be manipulated with Boolean algebra and propositional calculus is very positivist, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. Are there undecidable actions or intentions from the perspective of justice, which can be assumed to be either just or unjust with equal consistency? It's an intriguing idea, but judging from context I think that's not something you meant either. Are there distinct, equally consistent and equally valid systems of justice? That sounds too post-modern for what I think you meant.

So I guess my conclusion is that I don't think your analogy helps your argument here, though maybe I've misunderstood you.

Christian

Maud'Dib,

What I was trying to say was that the following is inherently true:
"This many" and "this many" when grouped together and considered as a whole are "this many." That seems to me to be self evident no matter how you define your terms.

It's certainly possible to invent new terms to describe such a self evident truth or new processes to utilize such a self evident truth ... but those things seem to me to be true only because they rest on the core concept of "quantity" (for lack of a better term.)

I looked up modulo arithmatic and in about a minute was able to understand the concept and to do simple modulo math problems. That is because it's just another (fairly simple) way of processing the concepts of "quantity" that I think of as self evident.

I'm not sure I've answered your request for clarity. What do you mean by "axiomatic framework" and how would that be different from a "definitional framework?"

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Christian