Anunnaki

"Of course the Christian doctrine is that God visited our sins (in justice) upon Jesus. Jesus became sin so God could punish him, for our sin. "


What this is saying is that god just had to punish somebody for his own faults when he created us. (this sin nonsense)
He could have just used his almighty power to go back and correct the problem,but instead he decides to send his only son down here so HE (jesus) can be punished for our sins.
Where is the logic in this? Why does someone have to be punished for something they have nothing to do with and no control over? And once again I ask,WHY is the best solution to the problem to take it all out on your son?

This is absolutely ridiculous and is certainly one of the most foolish and sick things the human race has ever dreamed up.

I can just imagine the mythological scene while jesus is on the cross.
Some guy in the crowd....."Jesus,what the hell did you do to deserve this"?
Jesus replies..."I don`t have any idea,but my father is a fucking prick and you should all be thankful that it`s me up here and not you"
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Bill Snedden

The answer to your question, as a_theist has pointed out, is that God is not just and good according to the standard definition.

The "standard" definition of good that you and I use is probably rooted in some form of consequentialism; we judge the "goodness" or "badness" of actions based upon their consequences.

Hence, you and I can agree that it is "bad" to torture a baby based on the consequences of that action.

However, as a_theist notes, for many Christians, "good" and "bad" have nothing whatever to do with humanity or human needs. They have only to do with God.

Therefore, only God can truly judge what is "good" or "bad", and obviously whatever God does is "good" by definition.

Of course, the ineluctable conclusion is that torturing babies isn't "bad" in and of itself. It's only "bad" if God didn't command it. This has the unfortunate consequence of utterly destroying the idea that humans are moral agents, capable of judging between right & wrong, but hey, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

David Gould

I don't think people have quite got the point of my question, but that is probably because I am not too good at explaining myself.

I do not believe God exists but I think that this point is crucial, so I will assume that God does exist for the time being.

Does God fit the criteria of merciful and just as described in my dictionary? (He can define himself as merciful and just if he wants to but I am not interested in semantic shuffling.)

Does He match the definition we have for those terms?

If he does, then non-believers are fine - God will be just and merciful to them under our definitions of those words.

If he does not, then believers are screwed as well as unbelievers because an unjust and non-merciful God has no reason to keep his promises to believers.

Can someone please paraphrase what they think I am saying so that I can see if I have started to get my message across?

Thanks

David

David Gould

Bill,

Thanks.

In that case, doesn't my second point stand? Don't Christians have as much to fear from him as I do? Christians, what keeps an unjust and non-good God to his word?

That is my main point - if the Christian accepts the second thing, what guarantee do they have of heaven?

It seems to me that the conclusion is that they have no guarantee - an unujst and non-good God may send me to heaven and the Christian to hell.

CodeMason

A Christian dies and ascends to the gates of heaven, where God greets him.

Christian: "Hello God! I have been a very good Christian all my life, it is my time to be let into heaven!"
God: "Hrmmmmm. Nah, I don't think so."
Christian: "But... I followed your laws so stringently! I gave all my posessions to the poor! I denied Evilution even after a mountain of evidence was placed before my eyes!"
God: "I changed my mind, OK?!"
Christian: "I thought you were a GOOD and JUST God!"
God: "HEY! I'm a superior being! I decide what's good and just around here! Now get out before I call Jesus and he gives you the bitchslapping of a lifetime."

David Gould

Brilliant, CodeMason. That's exactly what I was trying to get at.

Makai

David-

I think you have a really good point here. The only way out of this seems to be the conclusion that humans alone are incapable of making moral decisions on their own; hence, any human standard of 'goodness' and 'justice' would be meaningless. That response, while possible, makes a mockery of objective morality...Bill's example with the baby hits it right on the head.

The second possibility, of God not being just according to human standards, is the real killer. You'd have a God who would damn people to eternal torment (or simply obliterates their souls, you get to pick ) because they couldn't pick the proverbial needle from the haystack. (And remember, we have like 50 identical 'One True Needles'. Pick well.) If a God would do this, I'd see no reason for such a God not to give a big almighty 'Gotcha!' when the 'True Believer' gets to Heaven.

-Makai

Bill Snedden

I think that you're correct, David. However, I also think that there aren't that many orthodox Christians that would argue that their salvation is guaranteed.

IIRC, orthodox doctrine holds that salvation is available only by the grace of God. Therefore, Christians may hope for salvation, they may trust that they are saved, but they have no basis for believing that their salvation is guaranteed, at least in the sort of iron-clad, 100% probability sense that we usually mean when we say "guaranteed".

Jesus himself said that many who call upon Him will not be saved:

Even worse, because there is nothing that man can do to obtain salvation (faith, not works!), there is no act, not even simple belief, that assures salvation. God's grace is available to all and He grants it to whom He may. Who's to say that He won't choose to grant it to honest atheists who didn't so much reject Him as simply fail to see His hand at work in the world?

So, I would agree with you that, in fact, Christians have just as much to fear from their God as do atheists.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Edited to add: Hey! Whoo Hoo! Post number 1,000!!!

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

bgponder

Hey Y'all,

Of course the Christians will respond that all this is merely man's wisdom, not God's; that the "foolishness" of the Cross is infinitely greater than any reasoning of humankind, and that they do indeed have a guarantee in the sacrifice and teachings of Jesus as revealed thru the Spirit, which knows the depths of God, all as per Paul in I Corinthians; and that is their Faith. IOW, David, they will not accept your second point.

None of the paradoxes are solved. I have wondered recently whether Christians would say that God has an Holy Unconscious, that corresponds to the human unconscious. It might help to solve some of the contradictions, if we could see them in that light, since it is known that humans can have thoughts of which they are unaware--but as related to the present discussion I think it would only deepen the Mystery of why God is not accountable to that which He prescribes for us.

Peace, Much Cornbread and Happy Holidays, Barry

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

xoc

First, I question whether there is a standard definition of good... obviously the question is whose standards are we talking about? "Getting what we deserve?" That is one but not the only definition. The Socratic view had justice put the people in their place: it would be unjust for a man "fit" for farming to be a king. We really have to decide a "standard", but by definition it will have an arbitrary quality(how can anyone be sure his standard of justice is good enough? Can we weigh crimes with a scale and find the correct punishment to mete by that? Is it just for a person to go to jail for 10 years for selling drugs yet another will do only a few years for rape? IMO it's not just, but how can I prove that as an objective fact to anyone else? I don't think it can be done).
Good and bad has everything to do with humanity, it's just that that has everything to do with God. How people treat man is how people treat God's Image, which is how people treat God by extension. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Gen 9:6) Man's treatment of his fellow man is a major theme in both the Old and New Testaments. The fact that sinning against your neighboor IS sinning against God is what turns what makes a somewhat inconsequential sin into a much worse sin.
Only God can perfectly judge what is good or bad. Man can and must make some moral judgments in his life; it is simply that he is not perfect in judgment. It's still necessary. As for "good", it is certainly not "good" to us if God wipes us out. That is providential "evil" rather than moral evil; the two of course need distinction. God does no sin, because sin is by definition rebellion and lawlessness and failure to meet the laws of God.
It's bad at least because it is unnecessary pain, it is malice of will(evil by definition- the impure heart of corrupt man), and of course it is an attack on God's Image, therefore an attack on God by extension. It is not a bad thing that we have this "extension", it's really cause to have faith in justice. "Vengeance is mine. IT is mine to repay" sayeth the Lord. There is objective morality because there is a morality that comes from an objective Judge and Witness, instead of the figuring of human opinions.