1 John 1:8 “If we say we are without sin, we deceive ourselves.” There is a memetic inheritance which brings with our humanity some self destructive habits, so that by the time we learn to speak we are already being dragged down by the bad examples we follow. It is not about deserving. Do three-year-olds deserve to be hit by a car and die. This happens, and no doubt they were doing something they were told not to. But to say they deserve to die is insane. We learn from our mistakes. That learning is the essence of life itself. Philosophies which do not acknowledge this and have an anti-life demand for perfection is no different than other bad habits which are self-destructive in the way they obstruct learning.
To be sure we often whip ourselves with the memories of our mistakes. To the degree this helps us to change, this is a good thing. We most certainly should remember both our near experiences with death and the harm we have done to others enough that we do not do the same things again. But this can also go too far if we go beyond this to think of both ourselves and others as worthless because of our mistakes. The real measure of value in life is in not some unrealistic perfection but in whether we are learning and doing better. There is plenty in the Bible for a Christianity which reaffirms this truth and if your religion is teaching something different then you should really start to question where this religion is really coming from.
The sermon of George McDonald referenced previously speaks to me along those lines, I need to read it through again, but what he says about justice and mercy is profound.
There are historical, archealogical and experiencial evidence to show that the birth, life, the death and resurrection of Jesus are real. The choice is yours. I will give an example.
In my town the economy is on explosion as evidenced by massive building construction projects all around. In one of the construction sites, they have left ahuge man hole on the street. I am walking and I see the man hole in front of me. It is real. I can do 2 things. 1)I can see the hole and believe that it is real. In this situation, I will walk away and save myself.
2). I see that it is real. But, I refuse to believe. What will be the consequence? I need not explain.
What is the conclusion of this analogy? I can believe whatever I want to. My belief or disbelief of the reality is not going to change the reality of the man hole. It is real and it will be there. But, my decision to believe or not to believe only has consequence for myself. MY BELIEF OR DISBELIEF WILL NOT CHANGE THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE MAN HOLE.
You are too intelligent for anyone in this forum.Therefore, I have no other choice than to leave you with your own way of thinking whether it is right or wrong.
The historical and archaeological evidence can only show a limited amount. The experiential evidence is personally very convincing but inadequate for an expectation that other people believe. Thus we are left with making a personal choice and have faith accordingly. So I take the Bible seriously and believe that Jesus died and was resurrected to a spiritual body as the Bible describes.
Ah… but there are different kinds of beliefs. Consider the following two examples:
The earth is round like a ball not flat like a table.
My team will win the state championship.
Only number 1 is like your manhole example. Believing the earth is flat and quoting the Bible in support of it does indeed fail to change the reality. But many beliefs are more like number 2, where the truth of it is not independent of believing it. Your belief either way contributes to whether it is true or false. Such to a great degree are many of the issues of faith.
I seriously doubt that. Besides…
I am not a big believer in differentiation of people according to intelligence anyway. I think real genius is derived from passion. Thus we are smart in the areas we love and thus give our time and energy to them, and dumb in the areas where care not and thus give very little of ourselves to them.
I am getting to an age where it is more about experience than intelligence. I speak about what I know from experience and intelligence has very little to do with it. And one of the things my admittedly short experience with people on this forum is that there are intelligent people here whom I can and have learned from already.
I take it you have found my explanations confusing then. But, I think leaving people to their own way of thinking is a good idea. For the most part, the best you can do in dialogues like this, is contribute a few ideas which other people may use as it suits their way of thinking.
Before we determine the sin or sins, justice and mercy, we do have to view the love or life.
That is one reason evolutionary creation seems illogical to me. In order to have life there has to be death with this view. Death does not necessitate life any more than life necessitates death. Being physical does not change that. Our understanding is limited because we do not exist in a state free of death. Evolution explains the continuation of life, and will never give us any insight to the life and death dilemma. For one thing evolution would not change if several attributes were removed. There would still be continuation of life, but with far different outcomes. If God removed any attribute that resulted in failures and abnormalities, evolution would still be evolution, only the results would change. Remove God and life and death would be meaningless. God’s love created the world. God’s wisdom created humans capable of limited choice. I have no idea whatsoever why God put a tree before Adam and told him that if he ate, it would change humanity until the end of the universe.
All we know is that at different points in human history God steps in and institutes more of what was started with Adam. Giving the Law to Moses more than likely had nothing to do with Adam whatsoever. Any reference involving the Law would have no influence in regards to the condition humans are in. Yes the Law addresses humanity’s condition but not as a resolution. It only address man’s relationship with man. Not with God. The part regarding God was to warn the Hebrews not to fall into the pitfalls of human wisdom. The wisdom that leads to the formation of religion. IMO culture does not dictate religion. Religion dictates culture. Cultural change is the overthrow of religion, not really outdated culture. Technology is the evolution of culture. Culture does not have to be dogmatic in religion. Dogmatism is the struggle between particular sets of beliefs.
The part of history involving Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrews was only setting up the genealogy of God inserting the Word into the physical universe.
The Hebrews share the distinction for being both the means of all of mankind’s redemption, but also in addition to and separate from, how mankind can live in harmony with each other. Yes this lifestyle seems gross and not progressive at all. Is it wrong or right to demand that God be progressive? Setting Adam up to fail does not make sense either.
Calvanism was born out of the fact that life/love is universal. Death/sin is also universal but only by Adam’s choice. The “unjust” part, is the “means” of redemption is not universal. Humans universally cannot die for all humans collectively to reverse what God allowed in a singular choice.
This is alledgedly unjust because either humans are allowed to think that this plan of God does not exist at all, the plan is unjust by human standards, or humans think what they do within themselves should be enough for God. Adam was never given the choice to right his wrong. By extension no other living human could do so either.
I find the following quote from Athanasius, The Incarnation, Ch 1 enlightening as it goes to the central issue:
You must understand why it is that the Word of the Father, so great and so high, has been made manifest in bodily form. He has not assumed a body as proper to His own nature, far from it, for as the Word He is without body. He has been manifested in a human body for this reason only, out of the love and goodness of His Father, for the salvation of us men. We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.
The Sin that Jesus came to forgive is no longer taught in Christianity as Satan has covered his tracks quite effectively. Walther Hinz provides the back story that has been lost to time in his book: Jesus – New Insights into His Life and Mission
The fall of the angels
Finally, parts of Michael’s spiritual army – in spite of their solemn pledge to uphold the heavenly world – went over to Lucifer’s side. At this point Lucifer decided: “Now I have sufficient legions. I will take up the battle and will defeat Christ with my legions! ”However, it came to nothing. The like-minded spirits had already gathered themselves together in the heavenly world – a world that was ever so populated by divine spirits and still is today. At the appropriate time divine angels, acting on God’s and Christ’s orders, brought forth their trumpets. The sound of their trumpets was always a summons to the spiritual beings to assemble when God or the King wished to speak to them.
At the sound of these trumpets the legions went to those places [sites] they normally went to when they heard the call to assemble. They went forth upon the sounding of the trumpets. They came from all the heavens and this is what happened this time as well. The rebellious spirits were full of hope as they arrived at their appointed places, thinking: “The time has come! Now our Father will confirm to us that we were right in what we have done.” This was their belief when they heard the sound of the trumpets.
Lucifer was convinced that his campaign would be successful. »He therefore made his way to the Father, intending to say to him: “I want to be King!” Thus, he walked past Christ feeling proud and victorious. Like the other ‘sons of God’, Lucifer was still in full possession of his rights. Thus, he was not far away from God when he set out to meet him. However, he had misjudged God’s nature …
The Light-bearer paid homage to the Father and said: “Now I want to be King! Father, look at the throngs who are devoted to me! They will serve me and you, but crown me as King of all the spirits!” God did not say much. His voice could be heard throughout all the spheres, by all spirits in all the expanses: “You have not fulfilled my holy will! It is my holy will that Christ should rule over all the spirits!” He thus announced that they were guilty of disobedience and that there was no longer any room for them in heaven.
All at once, the Light-bearer realized: “I have revolted against God’s law and thought my rebellion was directed against Christ only …” He had not intended to rebel against God, for he knew his power; he had believed that God would grant him the rights for which he was striving. (Kindle Locations 447-468).
This is why that only through a re-commitment to Jesus can the fallen return to Heaven.
I object to this terminology. “Law of forgiveness” is a contradiction in terms much like "power of love. It sounds like the invention of those who turn Christianity back into the legalism of the Pharisees with Gnostic gospel of salvation by believing the right things in order to justify an attitude of entitlement. Forgiveness is not about changing the rules and what is right. In fact, the forgiveness being offered requires a recognition that one has failed to live up to the requirements of the law. Therefore making this into a new law turns it all on its head and makes a mockery of forgiveness itself.
Im not a big fan of Islam but you are wrong about no one forcing people to have abortions. This took place in China where if a woman got pregnant a second time, they would haul her off to the abortionist and force one upon her. This happened to both Christian, Islamic and secular women. Furthermore, right now organ transplants are happening where an innocent muslim in a re-education camp out in NW China is found to be a match for some rich person who needs a new organ–and they take it from that innocent man. It seems the innocent pay for the sins of others in our world today quite often.
concerning the original question in this thread the idea that Christianity is illogical because an innocent man shouldn’t be killed for other’s sins, I would suggest that the origin of Judaism involved just such an event, but a near miss. The society sacrificed animals for the forgiveness of their sins. Then Abraham is told to sacrifice his son–a mirror image of God sacrificing Jesus, only Isaac wouldn’t work out, because he too was a sinner.
Genesis 22:9-13 "Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son
Yes this was to test Abraham’s faith, but it was also to indicate to Abraham that his faith required an eventual human sacrifice–Jesus. Paul is an interesting person in that after he had an experience with God he went to the desert for 3 years to think about the faith he had as a Jew and how it related to what his Damascus road experience told him was the correct path–Christianity. What he writes in Hebrews 11:17-19 indicates his understanding of Abraham’s actions on Mt. Moriah. A perfect human sacrifice, a descendant of Abraham was required, and that this sacrifice would rise from the dead.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Abraham had all the elements of Christianity–a descendant of his was to be sacrificed and raised from the dead to pay for mankind’s sins.
By ‘figure’ he means a symbol. That verse refers to Hebrews 9:9 referring to the Tabernacle as insufficient to pay the price of righteousness
Hebrews: 9:9 while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience
But no matter how one slices it, the sacrificing innocent animals for the sins of man, within the Jewish religion, still has the innocent paying the penalty for sins. Leviticus 4:32-33
And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
The lamb was innocent of sin, being incapable of sin. Why a female lamb? Because she was more valuable to the farmer. It cost him more in future profits. She had offspring which increased wealth; rams didn’t. One only needed one ram in a flock; 2 or more caused them to damage each other. One wants as many females as possible so the flock grows as fast as possible.
No I don’t believe in any magical power derived from human or animal sacrifices. Nor do I believe in a God incapable of forgiveness without some kind of voodoo magic spell ritual. And it is insane to believe that an innocent person can literally pay for the crimes of others – only depraved criminals would think so.
However… what is true is that the innocent DO suffer because of the crimes of others and those who are in any way redeemable turn their life around because of this. And thus in a metaphorical sense you can say that the innocent have paid for the redemption of others in much the same way we say that brave soldiers pay the price for our freedom. It also true that cheap forgiveness does more harm than good, and thus forgiveness is not wisely offered unless we reason to believe that the person has the right attitude needed for change. And I think the shift in Judaism of animal sacrifice for overcoming bad habits rather than paying for divine protection was an improvement in religious thinking.
Thus I am a rational Christian not a magical Christian. I believe that Jesus died for our sins – not as some kind of required payment or magical power, but because when Christians who love Jesus realize their sins have nailed Jesus to the cross then they want to change.
Mitch, I love your absolute certitude that everyone else is wrong and I love your willingness to think us insane (for clarity the phrase ‘it is insane to believe’ requires a believer who is insane).
I see your claim that Jesus died for our sins being different from Jesus’ death paid the penalty for our sin as a distinction without a difference. Let’s see. Jesus died. As you say, it was our sins that have nailed Jesus to the cross, so if the death isn’t to satisfy the ‘voodoo’ as you claim, what was it about our sins that nailed Jesus to the tree? You say you are a rational Christian, but your statement leads to anything but rational.
I am trying hard to figure out what you believe and find myself not seeing any way this idea, that Jesus didn’t pay for our sins making any kind of logical sense.
To say sins nailed Jesus to the tree must be either taken literally or figuratively. Literally one would ask: Did sin’s mug Jesus and hammer nails into his hands and feet? I know you don’t mean that.
Figuratively one must ask: what is the relationship of Jesus’ death with those sins? If there isn’t any relationship, then, could Sparticus, who was also crucified, have served to be the important death and our sins nailed to his cross?
Why did Jesus have to die if there was no relationship between his death and those sins, that is, if he didn’t do something with those sins?
Jesus pled with God to take this cup away if there is another way. Clearly, if his death was not required for anything, then Jesus’s plea should have been answered, meaning God watched a useless death of his son on the cross.
Is it just the fact that there was a cross that is important? I don’t think that is what you are saying, but for the life of me your view makes no sense to me.
To me, your view, as I understand it is much worse than the traditional view. At least there was a purpose in Jesus’ death in the original view. But as I understand your view, Jesus’ death was just a coincidence that happened at the time sin was nailed to the cross. Why sin wasn’t nailed to the thousands of other crosses the Persians and Romans had raised is something I don’t understand.
finally I find your view a bit too much dependent on works. You say that when Christians realize that their sins nailed Jesus to the cross, then they want to change. Are you saying the change comes from within them and not from God? Whatever happened to God being the author and perfector of our faith?
Dear Bob,
Let me give you answer between you and @mitchellmckain that may lift the fog. Jesus died to overcome Sin - not to forgive all sins that man will ever make. This it is the logic error that the Grace doctrine creates. Jesus clearly says that we need to repay our debts and become perfect as God is perfect. (Matt 5:21-26, 5:44-48) So, Grace alone does will not allow you to achieve the Kingdom of God.
Also, works alone will not allow you to achieve the Kingdom of God because only through acceptance of Jesus as King will allow you access to His Kingdom.
I capitalized Sin because this is what Jesus came to forgive. Prior to Jesus, no one went to Heaven. All souls went back to Hell and back to the realm of Death. Jesus’ victory over Death opened the gates of Heaven for the first time. This was His great act of redemption. But Death did not take his defeat lightly, and he he tried to hide his defeat as there is no mention of the three days Jesus spent in his domain anywhere. This is why there is so much confusion today about Jesus’ Victory over Death. This was all sweated under the carpet by my two friends Constantine and Justinian - the two greatest servants of Satan.
I gather you believe in partial atonement. To me this then creates a problem with those whose sins are not forgiven–The bible says God doesn’t wants all to come to knowledge of him, but if there is only partial atonement, then too bad so sad for those left out.
Dear Bob,
Under the Grace doctrine, all of these that do not learn about Jesus in their life are also left out. But I believe in the promise of the restoration of all things (Apocatastasis), through which all requirements are met for every child of God - Grace and Atonement.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Incorrect. There certainly is a difference. The difference is an insane idea of justice only practiced by depraved criminals.
You see the point is that you can babble until you are blue in the face about someone else paying for your crime and as judge or jury I will not listen but send you to your punishment for your crime while trying to make reparations for the wrongful conviction and punishment of the innocent person. That is what a sane justice system will do.
Jesus only died because the people of that society were ruled by their sins. Our sins are no different than theirs – they have the same self-destructive nature that would lash out and attack the innocent, even when they are trying to help us.
Indulgences and the whole idea that you can pay for your sins is the fabrication of evil people.
As usual literalism is the refuge of those who do not want to understand. So Jesus explains in Matthew 13.
There is a direct causal relationship between sins of the people who murdered an innocent man and their sins are entirely representative of our own sins. We have no justification for believing that we are any better than they were. So… there is no need to make anything magical about the connection.
We have free will, therefore however unlikely, it was always possible for enough people to listen to Jesus and turn from their sins and NOT murder the one God had sent.
Nonsense. It does not follow that God had to require this death in order for this death to be anything but useless. The cup of which Jesus spoke was the cup of Socrates – the willing death of one who will not back down but will give their life for the sake of principle. Such a death is NEVER useless – quite the contrary!
There is nothing traditional about this distortion of western Christianity from medieval whipping boy practices. It is the Eastern Orthodox which sticks to the oldest traditions and knows very well that this is idea of paying for the sins of mankind is a metaphor and only one of several metaphors used in the Bible to explain the atonement.
An insane magical purpose is not the only purpose to be seen in Jesus’ death. A rational non-magical approach, which sees this as metaphor just like way we say soldiers pay the price of our freedom, works just fine. Rather than diminishing the idea that Jesus died for our sins , it makes it stronger by removing the justification that this was something God did and could not be avoided, and thus makes us fully responsible for this death of Jesus on the cross. Because every time we sin we add our voice to the crowd shouting “crucify him!”
I find your view a bit too much cheap grace. “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith… faith apart from works is dead.”
And thus change comes directly from the work of God… it doesn’t have to be magic in order to come from God.
YES! But the latter is not Grace but indulgence. Big difference! Grace requires repentance and thus the will to change. It is always… “your sins are forgiven so go and sin no more.” Paul explains this thoroughly in Romans 2.
Mitchell, this is where many people are mistaken. Grace is give freely from God, you cannot possible earn what He has given and there is nothing you can do to earn His Grace. Grace requires nothing, He has given it, period.
Best Wishes, Shawn
The content of Grace is change and the Calvinist version of irresistible grace is not Biblical! But to accept change is the very meaning of repentance. Accepting a gift does not change the gift into something which is earned. That is absurd!
The doctrine of Grace comes from Matthew 19, where Jesus responds to the man asking what he must do to have eternal life? This interaction goes nowhere because it is the wrong question and ultimately Jesus’ answer is, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Grace is not about there being no requirements. Jesus never taught any such thing. Grace is about the fact that salvation is not something we can do, but something which only God can do. The point was never that we do not need to do anything, but that that nothing we do will ever be enough. There is never a point where we can be sitting pretty with salvation as one of our accomplishments. To be sure many Christians behave this way but that kind of entitlement is a complete distortion of the teaching of Jesus and Paul.
Grace is in the fact that God sent His only Son, and this we have no part in - it is done whether we believe it or not. That is what I mean by it requires nothing. And yes, many Christians think that only they were given God’s Grace and this false idea leads to Christian entitlement.
Incorrect. There certainly is a difference. The difference is an insane idea of justice only practiced by depraved criminals.
You see the point is that you can babble until you are blue in the face about someone else paying for your crime and as judge or jury I will not listen but send you to your punishment for your crime while trying to make reparations for the wrongful conviction and punishment of the innocent person. That is what a sane justice system will do.[/quote]
Again, I note your treatment of those who hold other opinions than you. Babble is a nice way to dismiss, without discussing evidence, ideas or logic. One doesn’t need serious discussion with someone who babbles.
I find your view entirely incoherent. You say: God did and could not be avoided, and thus makes us fully responsible for this death of Jesus on the cross. Because every time we sin we add our voice to the crowd shouting “crucify him!”"
You don’t like magic, but the above certainly sounds like magic to me. My sinning doesn’t add my voice to anything that happened 2000 years ago, unless there is magic–or voodoo as your often parlance.
You say God didn’t require a death.
A rational non-magical approach, which sees this as metaphor just like way we say soldiers pay the price of our freedom, works just fine. Rather than diminishing the idea that Jesus died for our sins , it makes it stronger by removing the justification that this was something God did and could not be avoided
If no death was required to forgive sins, then as I understand your view, there would have been no real need for Jesus to even walk the earth. Meaning, to use your phraseaology, an insane God sent his son to earth, risking his death in a horrible way, for no real purpose at all other than to provide a ‘metaphor’. No rational father would risk his son’s life to provide a metaphor and prove that his son wouldn’t back down.
You wrote:
The cup of which Jesus spoke was the cup of Socrates – the willing death of one who will not back down but will give their life for the sake of principle. Such a death is NEVER useless – quite the contrary!
Jesus’ death was not required to pay for sins, as you point out over and over, so God sent him, risking Jesus’ life just so he could not back down. I’m aghast at this logical conclusion I draw from your view. It seems to me that Jesus died for no reason at all. Sins were not paid for by his death, God could have communicated His forgiveness of us in some other manner to accomplish that message. God could have taken Jesus out of the earth prior to his death if Jesus’ death didn’t do anything but create a metaphor. But this cruel God left Jesus to suffer for nothing. That is what I see in your view.