The main reason why I cannot accept Christ as my saviour

Faith & Science Conversation
101

Change the name from God to Satan and here we have an argument to worship the devil…

Here is something those who don’t like the idea of an innocent patsy paying for someone else’s crimes, have forgotten. If my god is a god of hatred, war, rape, and murder, we best do what that this creature requires. Satan can do what he wants to do whether or not we like the idea. If Satan chose to use substitutionary death as a means to pay for sins, then saying it is ridiculous or an insane idea is pointless. Satan can do whatever he wishes to do. Starting with all the gods of the ancient world demanding human and animal sacrifices, there is no reason to see Jesus as anything else. Those who don’t like the idea should take the issue up with the god of this world. He sets the rules.

Those who argue from power for the worship of evil are nothing but demon and devil worshipers, no matter what name they choose to plaster over them.

BUT… God does not need a voodoo human sacrifice spell to make Himself forgive and He did not send Jesus as a human sacrifice to provide an indulgence for sins. God sent Jesus so that we might have life and have it more abundantly by helping us to overcome the sins (self-destructive habits) that were killing our spirit. From the beginning with Adam and Eve, these sins included blaming God for our difficulties making a relationship with Him do more harm than good even to the point of being part of the psychopathology of some of the worst of us. And though it is only our perversity that requires the death of the innocent before we will change, Jesus willingness to offer of His own suffering and death sets the record straight, that God will do anything to help us and the problem is in us and not in Him – not with some weird mafia idea of justice or with a hard heart that only forgives with immense difficulty. And so we can say that Jesus died for our sins in the same way that brave men have died for our freedom and the law. It may be a metaphor but is still completely true.

1 Like
102

Mitchell, it would be very nice if you were to quote Scripture saying that rather than just stating your opinion, which is nice, but doesn’t hold much weight with me. I am not clear why you think your opinion on matters like this are to be taken as gospel.

Secondly, Job 2:6 makes it clear that Satan isn’t allowed to do whatever he wishes to do. God put limits on what he could do to Satan.

103

Being a Christian is not a self given title or religion. If one can be called a follower of Christ by their actions alone, by others, then that should be a Christian to be considered capable of the name given.

104

No that is insult to all the non-Christians in the world. Good is good. Christian is Christian. Being a good, righteous, or holy person doesn’t make one a follower of Christ. And even being a follower of Christ does not make one a Christian. Muslims, Hari Krishna, Sikhs and Bahai all see themselves as followers of Jesus. Christianity is a religion with its own beliefs apart from these others so being Christian means more than this.

105

gbob, it would be very nice if you were to quote Scripture saying that rather than just stating your opinion, which is nice, but doesn’t hold much weight with me. I am not clear why you think your opinion on matters like this are to be taken as gospel.

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

(shrug) God puts limits on what God will do. This is beside the point. The argument from power which you made does not distinguish between God and the devil. Therefore, if someone comes to me with such a bogus argument, their “god” will get nothing but my middle finger. I don’t care what the threats may be. I will stand on the side of what is right and I will never be a craven worm eager to do evil in order to get on the good side of some demon monster god.

106

Wow I find that rather disturbing. I wonder if this means that so long as you were convinced it was what God wanted/demanded, you yourself would be willing to do anything whatsoever?

1 Like
107

Coming from a non-religious background, one of things in the Bible that was so surprising to me was how much it speaks of the evils of religion. It is human nature, I suppose, that people will twist anything into a means to get what they want, thus it is not surprising to see that religion and more specifically Christianity has been twisted into a tool of power. Emphasis on obedience to whatever God demands is particularly useful for this and thus I think we have good reason to doubt that such things come from any other source than people making religion serve the purpose of power (however innocent particular people may be in supporting such dogma).

But this is also why the abolishment of religion is terrible idea. Man is a religious animal and such stuff is part of our psychological makeup . We continually see religious type practices springing up all the time everywhere in this world. So we will always need the accumulation of understanding what makes for bad religion, especially as a part of religious tradition which helps to channel and guide this human impulse in better directions.

2 Likes
108

Well, one can argue that–but would He be appropriate to enforce morality in a code He doesn’t follow? I’m not talking about whether He can take life or not, but whether He can take it unjustly or not.

In my Pensacola Christian Correspondence School book in 5th grade (I think it was), “The History of the World from the Christian Perspective,” the author criticized the Roman and Greek gods for enforcing morality on the people but themselves cavorting with and being unfaithful. One would think we should apply the same criticism to our own idea of God, wouldn’t one? What do you think of the Euthyphro Dilemma?

“Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (10a) It implies that if moral authority must come from the gods it does not have to be good, and if moral authority must be good it does not have to come from the gods –Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

Lewis’ argument for the universal moral law (something I’m studying for Sunday School now, which he put forth in Mere Christianity) was that our inborn sense of right and wrong comes from an ultimate sense which we all instinctively know, but never live up to. Does that imply we find nothing at the pinnacle other than power in enforcing a code?

Rachel Held Evans noted that once you think God isn’t necessarily “good,” it takes away tremendously from your desire to search for God. George Macdonald also wrote, “If it be said by any that God does a thing which seems to me unjust, then either I do not know what the thing is, or God does not do it…Least of all must we accept some low notion of justice in a man, and argue that God is just in doing after that notion.”

One thing that a conclusion that Christianity points to such a “survival of the fittest” war god would lead me to fear, would be if religion, after all, were simply a social, adaptive construct, that we made up to help us find survival and accommodation to the harsh reality of this world. It would seem that Jesus’ example of coming to be and suffer with us is the opposite of that.

Also, regarding suffering on the Cross–Jesus isn’t the only one who suffered unjustly. Many others have done that. While I understand your point, I don’t think that the argument of suffering is the ultimate one in favor of penal substitution.

Here’s an interesting take on the Atonement in Romans Episode 93: Keesmaat & Walsh - Resisting Empire in the Book of Romans - The Bible For Normal People

By the way, I sincerely appreciated your post on what you went through in discussing geology with YEC; my own family are wonderful folks, but I am eternally puzzled why some of their initial response to those who disagree with YEC is that they want to rebel against God.

Thanks for your discussion.

1 Like
109

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard online atheists assert that exploitation was precisely why religion existed at all. eye rolls

It does seem that meekness and obedience is over emphasized to the point that it becomes one of the main take aways from many Christians sermons. It has its place and I often chafe at the lack of proper humility on the part of apologists. But I think that place is in reflecting on ones own powers of deduction and limited knowledge versus that which often understands our own hearts and intentions better than we do ourselves. It needn’t and shouldn’t become a reason to feel helpless. It also should not leave us open to self proclaimed messengers of God. I think what we each do matters very much and that our involvement is essential. Anyone who expects miracles to handle our problems has abdicated their responsibility to the rest of us. We can do better.

I think this too though I conceive of that which supports God belief differently. Nonetheless it is inescapable and enriching. But the tendencies to prefer easy answers to questions lead as readily to simplistic atheism as to poor theology. It is worth the trouble to try harder than that. Sometimes I think the actual practice of Christianity too readily accepts a division between the few who take such things seriously and the masses who go on about their lives with only a few simplistic homilies which require too little engagement. Maybe this is inevitable and realistic? I hope not, I’d much rather think we can do better.

110

Well, I thought in post 98, I did exactly what I suggested you do—quote scripture as to why the sacrifice of an innocent Jesus was required by Scripture itself. Am I a hypocrite? On many things, yes I am, but not on this issue. Maybe you should actually read what I wrote before making such charges. Yes, the post wasn’t in direct response to one of your posts, but it I did have you and the opening post in mind when I wrote it. And I addressed your issue of the insanity of the sacrifice when I wrote of 1 peter 1:18-20 (which I quoted) in that post you ignored, a statement directed specifically at your position. "Unless one wishes to say Peter is insane then Peter is saying that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sins of the world–like it or not we must play by God’s rules

I am not so naïve as to think you will apologize for calling me a hypocrite on this particular issue, I can with a clear conscience say I am not because I cited Scripture to support my position that Jesus’ sacrifice paid for sins, a view you don’t like.

111

It is not an insult. It is an offensive truth. I did not say one was a Christian merely by their works. But only one’s actions should be a recognizable means to that end. Not any one claim an individual makes, makes them a Christian.

If humans need religion it is ‘instead of God’, not really a way to identify with God. It is just not words and actions that identifies one with God either. It is the heart and mind of the individual. One’s words and actions are not always what comes from the inside, but something to mask what is actually going on in one’s heart and mind.

112

I was never much of a wordsmith. How you describe your interpretation of the passages from Genesis is precisely what I had referred to as "purely metaphorical". I leave it up to you (and @Christy) to correct my usage.

I fully concur that, conceptually, mentality/spirituality are NOT identical, but they interact in ways that greatly affect one’s worldview. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to read as widely as you have how great thinkers of the past (Plato, the Gnostics) have dealt with the problem. In ‘striking out on my own’, I have been greatly impressed with past attempts to separate Nature from Nurture: 1) the separation of newborns from human contact beyond what is necessary to keep the alive (done by an Egyptian pharaoh and by the King of Naples among others); and (2) stories of ‘wolf children’, adopted and raised in animal packs (Tarzan fictionally); but, most informative (3), those humans, perhaps both blind and deaf, who by some immense effort (and good fortune) manage to enter into human society. Helen Keller is a prime example of the latter.

Arthur and Katherine Keller are Helen’s biological parents. At the age of 19 months, just as she was being exposed to vocabulary and other aspects of truly human life (in the Noosphere), she became severely ill and lost both sight and hearing. Her only contact with surrounding humans was the sense of touch. Fortunately, her parents were wealthy (and caring!) enough to hire Anne Sullivan as a tutor and caretaker. As she progressed from infancy to girlhood, Helen became almost impossible to deal with. She felt unbearable frustration at being surrounded by a rich human society (the Noosphere of Ideas) that she was blocked from entering.

There is no doubting her (potential ?) mentality (she later graduated cum laude from Radcliffe). But what was her spiritual condition? As a pre-adolescent, it logically might also rate the description, potential; i.e. she was not a fully responsible adult.

Anne Sullivan was an unusually prescient teacher. She was not only unusually patient, she deduced that she had to find some way to use the sense of touch to introduce Helen to the concept that words, made up of letters (spelled out using fingers) could symbolize material object. Anne guessed that, before her illness, Helen might have included “water” in her infant vocabulary. So while running water over Helen’s hands, Anne spelled out w-a-t-e-r on Helen’s forearm. The title of the book and movie is not an exaggeration: the effect truly was Miraculous. Afterward, the days were not long enough for Helen to acquire ever more information of the world that surrounded her. Katherine was her biological ‘birth mother’, but realistically, Anne Sullivan was Helen’s Noological birth mother.

I have a strong feeling that the Helen Keller story has much to tell us about spirituality/soul/intellect/symbolism. But I’m the first to admit that it’s still quite hazy.

Here you enumerate the most significant differences between human and animal life, and why I believe we ought to accentuate the unique differences between Biosphere and Noosphere, the ‘event’ that made Homo sapiens a eusocial animal and thus more powerful (for good and evil) than any animal that preceded it. I think that both you and I believe that God has played a dominant role in this drama, but we have difficulty, as mere humans, expressing the HOW.
Al Leo

113

@mitchellmckain @gbob
Just a reminder that lobbing veiled remarks about one another’s character is skating pretty close to the “not gracious dialogue” line. You are allowed to vehemently disagree with one another. You are not allowed to ascribe negative motivations to other people for not sharing your views. At least not in writing.

114

I respond to a post with no quotes of the Bible to support it, then gbob makes a post mining for quotes to support his position THEN complains that my response to his previous post makes no quotes of the Bible. You can call this dishonest outrageous behavior by whatever name you choose. But I gave gbob a quote from the Bible which I thought was appropriate and still do. And NONE of gbob’s quotes of the Bible does ANYTHING to resolve our difference on how those Bible passages should be understood. I agree with the Easter Orthodox that this is a metaphor and only one of several used for the atonement, while making it clear that a literal interpretation simply isn’t how sane people run a system of justice.

115

So “purely metaphorical” means anything but a purely literal understanding based on word usage of today with no consideration of time in which they were written. So… if we don’t understand that passage from Genesis 2 as describing a necromancer making a magical golem out of dust then that would be a “purely metaphorical” interpretation? Or… maybe you can give me an example of some middle ground here… an interpretation of that passage that isn’t purely literal and yet is not what you call “purely metaphorical.” Because if you cannot do that then I would suggest that your use of the word “purely” as been somewhat empty of meaning.

Here is what I thought “purely metaphorical” would refer to. This would be taking the passage as merely a colorful way of describing the fact that God created human beings but without any information about how God actually accomplished the task. That is not what I have done at all, saying that “dust” is simply the only word available to describe such things as matter and particles and that breath of God is quite a literal reference to inspiration and communication from God.

116

The post was public and out there and only 12 posts back from your post. Indeed from the last time I was on a couple of days ago

117

Logically anyone can claim anything is purely metaphorical. Is the bodily resurrection a metaphor and nothing more? If not, why not? If so, why? Still trying to understand your view that seems quite useful if one wants to get rid of anything miraculous. FYI my wife and her family were and are Eastern Orthodox (she is Lebanese). I have never heard any of them claim that Christ’s sacrifice is metaphorical–in the 48 years I have been in the family. Indeed, I have heard quite the opposite. Thus, I don’t think this is a widespread Eastern Orthodox belief.

118

Jesus was either God, or He was not. That is the ultimate question that needs to be asked.

God’s creation is not without mystery. But, I believe through scripture and inspiration
by the Holy Spirit that, Adam’s sin was to “take” from God what wasn’t his to take.
Knowledge. And Adam compounded his sin by NOT taking responsibility for it. But Evil blinds us to the Truth!

Why not a tree of “Knowledge”? The existence of Evil is true. Why would God hide the truth from us? He might not want us to experience it. He may even have explained in some detail that it “wasn’t good” for man. But man, his free will, and wanting to be “like God”, didn’t trust Him, and learned for himself. So man is left to himself. And his sin.

The interesting scripture that follows Adam & Eve’s sin is:

Gen 3:22
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—KJV

It’s “ALL” right there…

“Become”, Adam & Eve took the unadvised step to know Evil. “…one of US”, implies more, other than man. “And now”, after man’s misdeed. “lest he put out his hand, and take also”, reaching for, and receiving. “…of the tree of Life” Jesus. “…and eat and live forever”. Becoming one with Jesus, the eternal “Bread of Life”.

Amen

119

Jesus is, always was, and always will be God. But no that doesn’t mean I will agree with you on other things.

You cannot take anything from God. That is nonsense.

No that was the real sin.

Religions only make it all about obedience to commandments because they want to turn religion into a tool of power over other people.

We use the word tree in descriptions of all kinds of knowledge: family tree, evolutionary tree, etc… So yes many kinds of knowledge are very describable as a tree. But knowledge is not a species of fruit bearing plant.

Evil is not an object or a force but a type of behavior. It is the pursuit of desires at the expense of the well being of others like yourself.

Indeed. I don’t think there is anything to be gained from an experience of evil – not even a good understanding of the difference between good and evil. One can not only know the difference between good and evil without experiencing evil, but the experience of evil when one does not have a clear knowledge of the difference tends to confuse and blur things even more.

It is in the nature of a child to want to be like his parent. The trust of a child for his parent is both natural and instinctive, but so is learning things for oneself, because that is essential for maturation and development as a living creature and even more so for a human being.

Some complain that a good parent does not put dangerous things in the child’s playroom. But that only works for toddlers. As the child grows up they have to learn to be responsible for their own well being and the transition is made with a parental command like, “don’t play in the street, or you will die.” And so this is naturally what God did.

A parent only leaves a child on one condition alone and that is when his presence in the child’s life does more harm than good.

A parent who opposes the maturation of his child wanting to keep them ignorant, underdeveloped, and dependent is a VERY bad parent. And when you love someone then you want them to be a part of your life forever.

Adam and Eve took a shortcut to becoming like God in a superficial way. To have the authority on good and evil without real knowledge of the difference learned in a relationship with God. Choosing to blame everyone for their mistakes but themselves, even God, God was transformed from the perfect teacher to the perfect scapegoat, and thus into an obstacle to human learning. Thus God had to withdraw from their lives, where they would be forced to learn that blaming others is pointless for there is no escape from the consequences of your own actions. But eternal life comes from a relationship with God, and thus the loss of this relationship brings spiritual death.

But… none of this has anything to do with the post you responded to which is about how the atonement of Jesus on the cross accomplished anything. No it is not because of some weird medieval distortion of justice or because God is incapable of forgiveness without a magic spell powered by human sacrifice. Its real efficacy comes from the fact people don’t change without seeing the worst that their sinful behavior can do, killing the innocent and destroying the very people who love and would help them.

120

Nor have I claimed that Christ’s sacrifice was metaphorical. This is a total strawman. Christ really died and really gave His life for our sake. What is a metaphor is this idea that Christ paid for our sins, just like how we say brave men paid the price for our freedom. These are metaphors because freedom does not literally require human sacrifice (it is not the fact that they died but that they put their lives on the line), nor can people literally pay for the crimes of others – nobody sane believes in a system of justice like that.

1 Like