On the contrary, rationality conforms to God, as He commands.
I agree. It is our own sin (stacked up against the ultimate and only good reality - God) that terrorizes us. And when we bring that sin with us under God’s judgment, we do rightly fear the results. I wasn’t at all speaking about principalities and powers (or demons or Satan) when I was speaking of praise for God. I realize there are some universalists who include even them. I feel no compulsion to defend or speak anything for or against that. I was here only speaking of all humanity. In the end, any “confession” of Christ as Lord that is only given grudgingly and under compulsion is no true confession - no love at all. Perfect love drives out fear. In any final eschaton where all is complete, … if all is good in that state, then there will be no more servile terror - even if that had been needed for a season to be an intermediate state for many of us on our journey towards truth. If I as an unrighteous human can easily wish no less for my own children and all those that I love, then how much more so the true God?
Right; but I think you’re also including loving correction (much in MacDonald’s theology, as in "he whom the Lord loves, He chastens) as one of His tools. It’s a corrective, not a vindictive, God. Would that be correct?
1 Like
That is where we have a problem. There is both truth and error in that statement, or least it can be misleading or misused. A similar argument is put forward in Rob Bell’s “Love wins.” The treatment of love as a means to power. But there is a fundamental incompatibility there. Anything which is a means to power is not love. Love does not drive, or compel, or force anything. And history is a cold hard demonstration that all too often, love does not win. Love invites. Love can be rejected, and is often refused. Change this and it isn’t love any more. To be sure there is tough love by which some get through to those who are stubborn and resistant. So I would agree that not all love is nicey nice. But it is a fine and difficult line. There are too many manipulative people who use love as their excuse to force their will on other people. But people don’t feel any love there, only excuses and rhetoric.
…or does not force anybody I would say. If I love somebody but see they are in the merciless grip of something that would come between them and me, I would exert what control I could muster to mercilessly drive those would-be separators out, be they microbes, or circumstances, or sin or whatever. Love doesn’t always appear to win … such as when our messiah is hanging bleeding broken and finally then dies at the hand of the state. But it is an article of faith for me that nothing triumphs over God’s love in the end. If something else does then we are indeed without hope.
And if what stands in the way and comes between them and you is they themselves, do you then drive them out? Bit of contradiction there, isn’t it?
That sounds to me like love as a means to power. That isn’t love. Love isn’t about triumph or winning. Sometimes…, I would even say quite often, for love to triumph, it has to lose. i.e. it has to accept the other’s choice.
P.S. this might remind you of a movie… “What Dreams May Come.”
I don’t think of power as being merely power over people (which I largely agree with you about). There is much power to be had in circumstances, and over the world at large - the so-called “winds of fate” as it were.
And I like the way you phrase it that …
I also think that our worldly concept of “victory” gets turned on its head by Christ. But I also hold to the conviction that Christ’s way gets the last word. The world’s ways - which do seek to leverage power in all the coercive ways - will be the ephemeral ways of thinking in the end.
Freedom is a tricky thing. It’s already heavily circumscribed by reality for all of us. Gravity coercively curtails my freedom to jump as high as I might sometimes want to. But it is a reality I had better learn to live with.
[And from those of us here in the U.S. - happy election day everyone! (or I guess it remains to be seen who all will be happy when it is all over.) But anyway - regarding election, I guess it could be celebrated here by discussing the finer points of Calvinism. 
]
marktwombly wrote: It is interesting to me that believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus puts Christians at odds with most people in the world, yet we hold on to it as a central tenet of our faith.
RS: I hope this is ok to ask. What’s the purpose of Jesus going through what the Hebrews used to accomplish with animal blood and still excluding people, or are all included? I still don’t understand how Jesus’ blood and animal blood give spiritual life. Animals didn’t rise from the dead compared to how people claim Jesus did. How come?
@bharatjj @Terry_Sampson @Bill_II @beaglelady
Science yes science
What happens to blood when dying on a cross?
Scientifically how does that feel to die on a cross?
Were the nails through lower arms wrists?
If nails are through the hands it will rip, causing falling off of cross, because not enough bones to keep the person on cross 'till death
There needs to be enough bone to keep the person from falling downward and falling off the cross
Let’s think science
The nails went through the wrists, not the hands.
Good idea.
1 Like
Apologies for this late entry in this thread. Forgive me if I repeat some ground that has already been covered. There are three possible explanations as to why one can be a Christian without believing in crucifixion.
One, Fundamental vs superficial
The eight basic Christian beliefs are enumerated by one site as follows. I give in brackets my understanding of Islamic equivalents (Basic Christian Beliefs and Doctrines of Christianity):
1 God the Father
2 The Trinity
3 Jesus Christ the Son
4 The Holy Spirit
5 The Bible: The Word of God
6 God’s Plan of Salvation
6(a) Jesus Christ died (crucified) for the sins of each and every person in the world (1 John 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 2:24).
6(b) Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead in physical form (John 2:19-21).
7 Hell Is Real
8 End Times
It is seen that crucifixion is only less that one-eighth of the basic Christian beliefs. The difference regarding crucifixion appears to be less important than the other differences between Christian denominations such as, say, between Unitarians and Trinitarians.
Two, Denial of Crucifixion within Christian Sects
Basilides (early second century) was a Gnostic Christian religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt:
To deliver humans from the power of the angelic beings who created the visible world, the Unborn and Nameless Father sent his first-born, Nous (known to history as the Christ). Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles, but he was actually beyond all association with the physical body. Indeed, it was not Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, assumed Jesus’ form, and was crucified in Christ’s place. As Simon was crucified, Jesus returned to His Father, laughing at those who mourned his suffering. Through gnosis (knowledge) of Christ, the souls of men are saved, but their bodies perish. (Basilides - New World Encyclopedia).
Therefore, it cannot be said that Crucifixion is the Primary belief of all Christians.
Indeed, Basilides’ teachings were judged heresy by Irenaeus. Basilides was a minority view and diminished or ceased by about 2 centuries after Basilides. Claiming that a historical Christian minority view–that is insignificant or non-existent today–carries weight against a majority Christian view is unacceptable. However, the fact that Basilides has been judged to be heresy by Irenaeus does not mean that his view is incorrect. We do not and, perhaps, cannot know the truth. The Bible is certainly an Inspired text. It is Word of God. However, its interpretation by Irenaeus or anyone else cannot be held to be conclusive.
Three, what actually happened?
The question that still requires resolution is what happened during Jesus’ bodily death? One possibility is that Jesus transmigrated into another body; and his physical body was nailed to the cross. In that case, the Jews/Romans would have killed his soulless body; not “Him.” Luke 8:30 tells of possession of one human body by many spirits. Jesus was SPIRIT. Thus, Jesus’ Spirit may have left the physical body before the body was nailed to the cross. In that case the soulless body would have been crucified. And the Spirit of Jesus may have appeared as having been resurrected.
Nothing special until you are actually dead.
Science can’t answer the question because it is not possible to repeat the event.
The Bible doesn’t say. But the Romans were quite skilled at crucifixion, they performed thousands of them, so they would know how to do it properly.
That’s…a way of looking at it. It’s also a way we’ve been told to look at it.
Was rejecting God a “right/wrong” choice? Or was it a “life/death” choice? The choice between “God” and “not God”? That’s not so much about “choosing wrong”…
- Persistence is not always a virtue; and your perseverance in maintaining ridiculous opinions does not “prove” anything other than the fact that your version of facts doesn’t prevent you from making stuff up.
- For example, in your newly revised Third point, you propose the possibility that a body can be noticeably soulless but not noticeably dead.
- Suppose Jesus’ soul left his physical body before the body was nailed to the cross. And the soldiers didn’t notice, but dutifully crucified what certainly must have appeared to be a dead body?
- Throwing reason to the wind, you go on to propose that Jesus’ Spirit continued, for no less than 40 days, showing up among former, living companions and acquaintances leading them to think that he had been resurrected when, in your opinion, he hadn’t actually been resurrected, but merely “left his body” without a cause, such as crucifixion.
- In support of that nonsense, you cite Luke 8:30, as if it is relevant; and I have to wonder if it’s possible that you yourself have an unclean spirit. That might explain your resistance to acknowledging and accepting Jesus’ crucifixion in this forum.
- In summary: your 3rd Point is neither “scientific” nor “Christian”. And yet, you claim to “love Jesus”.
- Your 2nd Point is, essentially, that it cannot be said that Crucifixion is the Primary belief of all Christians.
- So what? Who, other than the four “gospels” [by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] and the other New Testament authors, has authority to decide what is “a Primary belief of all Christians”? You–a self-proclaimed Jew, Muslim, and Christian–certainly don’t. The fact is: Jesus was either crucified or he was not. And, he was either resurrected soon after his death from crucifixion or he was not. Your interminable desire to prolong debate over both matters does not hide the fact that you want to keep your position afloat in the public eye somewhere, and, to do so, you have to maintain a controversial position on something, so for some perverse reason you’ve settled on Jesus’ crucifixion as that controversial position.
- Personally, I wish Biologos members would “starve your position”. Without attention, your posts on crucifixion or any of your other novel opinions would either die OR you’d have to repost the same tripe again and again elsewhere “to keep it fresh”. In the latter case, though Moderators–who have limited tolerance for “broken records”–would stifle it.
- But until I am the last person to do so, I’m going to respond to each and every one of your “broken record” posts, pointing out to any passerby why I do so.
- Your 1st Post: “The eight basic Christian beliefs are enumerated by one site as follows.”
- I deny and reject the authority of the site that you cite. Based on The Bharat Principle of Reasoning, I point out that: “Just because you and I don’t agree, doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.”
- Case closed.
1 Like
To the OP, I’m Christian and do not know if Jesus was God incarnate as there is no obvious divine intelligence in the gospels any more. Had a great pastoral session with my vicar, covering that, might post the mail that evoked it, this week. He, rightly, reinforced intentionality on my part. Must try harder : )
1 Like
I am sorry. I struggle too. I do not see what God desires in struggling against doubt. Far more, I think Macdonald would say, is the day to day acting out of what God would have us do and say to our fellow.
I like his passages in “Wingfold” on this …and even more Austin Fischer’s “Faith in the Shadows.” A bit like Tutu, I would say if God demands fideism against proof to get in to heaven, I know some who just can’t do it that way…and don’t think I’d like to join that club. A truly just God wouldn’t demand that of everyone, so I don’t think we have to worry about that.
We told our children that, as Macdonald said, doing God’s will and worshiping him are the same thing
People must believe what they can, and those who believe more must not be hard upon those who believe less. I doubt if you would have believed it all yourself if you hadn’t seen some of it.
From “Princess and the Goblin.”
I appreciate your thoughts. From another quote of his, “Philosophy is really homesickness.”
Thanks. Blessings
3 Likes
If someone does not believe in the resurrection I would be curious what makes them believe in Christianity to the point to identify with it? Could you’re morality be influenced by Christianity without believing it and so on. Guess it would depend on what they replaced resurrection with.
I also notice in the last dozen or so replies that conditional Immortality came up. “ annihilation “ and I could have read it wrong but thought it was a reference to something that’s not affecting the way we live. I disagree. I think the outlook you have on this subject does make a difference. There are many people who abandon the faith over it. ECT is like a toxic relationship where a guy says he loves the woman , as long as she does what he says, and if she does not do it, then he hurts her. Not like a parent spanking a kid. ( which is something i don’t think a husband should ever do to his wife as a form of discipline, they are not kids you whip into submission and even then, for kids, there seems to be better ways ).
But anyways it’s like if a husband really put a beating on his wife. Busted her up , to the point of death, and yet she pulls through. To look at a god as loving and justices, and then believe that god keeps you in a state
Of eternal life just so you’re tortured forever and ever will have some kind of psychological backlash.
When you’re a Christian primarily out of the fear of being burned alive for all eternity instead of being a Christian out of love for Yahweh and humanity I’d think it’s going to really shape how you see god and how you understand justice.
Even if we had the ability to keep someone alive forever, I imagine most of us would not ever think it’s a good idea to keep a criminal, regardless of how vile they were, alive to thousands of years just so we could torture them nonstop , every second of every day.
1 Like
I pretty much count on Christians to hash out what defining conditions characterize Christianity. Of course if those conditions change enough over time or between denominations then even secular historians might weigh in with a reasoned opinion. But as a non who has been told any number of times that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know while an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe without regard to what the people who claim those terms intend by them (as though these were mutually exclusive), I should know self descriptors need to be defined from within.
2 Likes
Agree. But who is a Christian?
Will u explain please.
Why did God make him the progenitor of noah, abraham and Moses if adam was so evil?
The disciples saw jesus after his resurrection. Was is physical jesus or psychic jesus? I would like u to explain. Friendly question. Resurrection as psychic jesus would be acceptable to many.