doc58

St. Robert and RJS,

My questions:

1) When I was a Christian, one theme we always praised God for was the great sacrifice He made in sending his only son. I got to thinking. Where is the big sacrifice? Basically, Jesus endured 6 hours or so of significant discomfort. But much less than many humans endure during there lives.
Jesus also had lived for all eternity past in total bliss so new exactly what he was about to get back to.
That 6 hours in less than a second of time when eternity is considered.
I just don't see the big sacrifice.

2) If the wages of sin is eternal hell and Jesus took our sins on himself to pay the price, then why doesn't he pay the same price as we do, eternal hell? What exactly did Jesus pay for our sins. A few hours of discomfort? For a being who exists for all eternity and knows first hand that physical death is nothing, then dying is no big deal, a big nothing.

Jeremy Pallant

Am I the only one who is reminded of Mother Theresa's infamous remark, to whit "I think it very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor."

RJS' stance on the benefits of suffering certainly brings this quote to mind. Would you agree with the Sacred Cow on this, RJS?

Dr Rick

That's why it's called "faith" - belief in something not supported by, or contrary to, logic and/or evidence.

One of the hallmarks of logical thinking is consistency, so of course we're predictable. Irrational thinking, including faith, is contrary to reason and so less consistent and harder to predict.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

RJS

Are you saying Mother Theresa was a bad and evil woman? I pray some day the Lord will use me is such a selfless fashion to help others. For now, I sit and type on a computer. Quite frankly, I am humbled that my comments unknowingly are similar to hers.

free12thinker

Let me explain it a different way. If I tell my daughter that she can either be a lawyer or be a garbage man, but if she's a garbage man I will disown her, does she really have the freedom to choose? And before you answer that, make sure you don't just say "yes, she has the freedom to pick whichever one". Think about what freedom means to every man, woman and child on this earth (especially in this country). Freedom wasn't just letting minorities plow the field or die, that was not freedom. By looking at your senseless logic, they could choose either way (listen to the white folk or do their own thing; like escape). That would be freedom to you, according to your interpretation. But freedom to everyone else is being able to decide, without fear of repercussion. Like say, Freedom of Speech without being censored. Freedom of expression, without being jailed. Get it yet? If you do, please put the free will from god in context, the same way expect freedom of speech and expression; meaning without fear of repercussions.

And, yes, we cannot ABSOLUTELY prove the non-existence of God, but you can't prove his existence. And in putting forth logic and reasoning, the probability of his/her/its existence is a lot lower than the probability that he's simply a myth.

RJS

As many of the Christian posters are called predictable too, I'll take that as a compliment

Hobbs

Could you please explain the connection here? I don't see it.

Do you mean to say that right and wrong exist because, and only because, God decreed them to be right and wrong? Did he have no reasons to say some things are right and others are wrong? Was it completely arbitrary? Or did he have reasons to say that rape, for example, is wrong? If he had reasons, what are those reasons, and why couldn't we just bypass God and appeal directly to them? If he had no reasons, if it was just his arbitrary whims, what makes that any different from saying that might makes right?

Could God have decreed that rape is good? Before you say that goodness is a part of his nature, I'll ask whether his nature could have been such that he could have decreed that rape is good? If not, then what is it that constrains God's commands and God's nature? If so, then in what sense, other than "might makes right and God is the biggest, baddest mutha on the block," is this right? If right and wrong are real, if they are not just arbitrary whims, they must be independent of God and constrain God's actions. If God is unconstrained, then what's the difference between that and "might makes right"?

And in either case, what does the real difference between right and wrong have to do with Jesus/God?

RJS

To the extent such suffering makes you realize your own limitations and causes you to humble yourself before the Lord, I would strongly disagree.

Hobbs

Another response would be to point out that maintaining these simplistic dualisms allows you to avoid seeing the real shades of gray between these extremes, or the real conflicts between incompatible goods (e.g. mercy can only be achieved by foregoing justice, since it is, by definition, an undeserved reprieve from a deserved punishment) or an unavoidable choice between evils (e.g. hurting your child by injecting a vaccine to minimize the possibility of more harm from a disease), all of which should mitigate against your faith in Jesus were you to allow yourself to look at them clearly and honestly.

RJS

Just ask the 2 billion followers of Christ.