Re: Any comments? (Answers to Pete)

Pete Dashwood wrote:
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I accept it in the spirit in which you intended it.

Excellent... :)

Some further comments below...
"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:45cf6$443060c9$45491d7a$8817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pete Dashwood wrote:
Here are some other things I really don't understand:

1. God SO loved the world, he gave his only son to be tortured and killed as atonement for the sins of Mankind.

What were these sins that demanded such a sacrifice?
Well, a woman offered her man some fruit that God had said they weren't to touch. (It was a test; why would an omniscient God, who already knew what the outcome was going to be, do this? For a laugh? To help combat the boredom of being eternal? Whatever, it strikes me as distinctly unGodlike behaviour...)
So a man (who happens to be the personification of God) gets flogged, humiliated, and crucified because an apple was stolen thousands of years before? Last time I looked, the cost of apples was not exactly so high that you'd kill for one...never mind torturing and humiliation.
Heh - well, if you look at it that way, no wonder it doesn't make sense. :) The sin wasn't necessarily eating an apple - it was the choice to disobey God. He created them with free will - they had to choose whether to obey Him or not.

And, God didn't want a sea of robots (or that would be what He would have created). Rather, He wanted beings who would *choose* to worship Him for Who He is, and trust Him for their needs.

Well, OK. But then shouldn't he accept their decision not to do what He wanted, without punishing them or requiring a blood sacrifice because they didn't meet his expectations? (And let's not forget that He knew what the outcome would be before he ever put the tree in the Garden...) Banishment from the garden, no more gravy train, and eventually the death of Jesus... Doesn't that seem like petulance because they didn't toe the line? I would expect an omnipotent being to say: "OK. You made a bad choice. You and I part company from here. You get on without me and I'll do a different project somewhere else." I still don't see why the blood sacrifice was required.

But that's just it - parting company with God leaves one wide open to Satan, with nothing holding him back. The sacrifice (annual in the Hebrew tradition, once-for-all with Jesus) was meant to be a picture of someone or something else taking the punishment for the wrongs one had done. In fact, this separation seems to be the greatest punishment of all - Jesus' most impassioned cry from the cross was "My God, My God, why hast thou forsake me?"

(I'm sure that Jesus spoke the King's English - didn't everyone in Bible times? ;> )

And why is an omniscient, omnipotent being so insecure that He requires worship anyway? What does the worship prove? That you terrified people into doing whatever you want? I really have some major problems with all of this...

I don't think it's insecurity at all - it's just that, because He is Who He is, He demands it. Not to compare CEOs to God, but if one walks into a meeting room, don't the other folks in the room stand *because* he deserves it? And would this CEO be showing insecurity if they corrected someone who did not do this?

2. And who was this terrible sacrifice made to?
Well.... God.
The same God who gave his son (who was actually himself) to the mob?
Er...Yes.

Isn't that a bit like deciding to cut your foot off with a blunt knife because the cat did something to offend you?
I dunno, ask a Christian.
Jesus was sent because it is only He who could maintain a sinless life.

I have trouble with that too... Are we saying He never slept with Mary (Magdalene), or lied to his parents when he was a kid, or played hookey from school or stole the neighbours apples? If that is is all so and He truly was 'sinless', then how can the argument that he became a person hold water? On the one hand we are told that all have sinned and it is part of the Human condition, on the other we are asked to accept that someone who wasn't Human became so without sinning. It is far too convoluted for a a simple brain like mine....

(Keep in mind, these are all answers from the Bible - I know that using a document to validate itself is frowned upon in some circles, but when it comes to Christianity - well, it's pretty much what we've got.)

According to the Bible, sin passed beginning with Adam, through the male, to all humankind. So, yes, we all were born with a nature that has, as a part of it, a propensity to sin. (And, to expand on that - this is why some things that people say just "come naturally" may not be viewed as "right" according to the Bible's teachings.)

Back to Jesus - He was conceived by the Holy Spirit inside a virgin - so, although He was human in form, He did *not* have the sin nature that all other men (as in "mankind") are born with. So, yes - He didn't sleep with Mary Magdalene, or lie to his parents, or play hooky from school, or steal apples.

(Having raised two babies to full elementary-school-hood, and with a 13-month-old, I often wonder what it was Baby Jesus did as He grew up. I'd love to compare His behavior as a child to my children - to see what was developmental, and what is actually the result of sin. To find that interesting, though, I guess you have to believe that sin exists.)

For 33 1/3 years, He did it. His death was an acceptable sacrifice.

But WHY was ANY sacrifice required? Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

Yes.

Wasn't getting evicted form paradise enough punishment for that?

Right - they did, and they made the wrong one

Besides they were supposed to have a choice. It isn't a choice if the only real option is to do as you are told. If God didn't want robots then the choice they made should have been equally as acceptable as the one He required/ preferred.

This bit really does escape me.

Make one choice, stay protected under God's care. Make another, and you're on your own. Both Adam and Eve thought they could do better on their own, and mankind has been working harder ever since.

[some snipped]

To be fair, Daniel, I have given this whole subject a great deal of thought. (And study.) Over 20 years. And not just Christianity...All of it. Certainly, I have invested enough thought into the subject to know the parts that confuse me and don't seem to add up. I also realise that my views on it are purely subjective and I would never seek to persuade anyone else to my point of view. One thing I am very certain about is that as long as there are religions in the world, all of us will need toleranmce and respect for each other's viewpoints.

I definitely agree on your last statement above. Let me ask you this - how is evangelical Christianity treated in New Zealand? Are cities allowed to put up Christmas trees without the threat of lawsuit? Are Bible clubs allowed in public high schools, and afforded the same privileges as the chess club or the debate club? Are people who object to lewd behavior labeled as "prudes" and "Bible-thumpers"?

I suspect that some other countries may actually have greater freedom of religion that the good ol' US of A does these days...

(I heard about an Easter Bunny decoration that had to be taken down so it wouldn't offend non-Christians. Maybe Chuck, with his extensive Scriptural knowledge, could help us - just what book, chapter, and verse deals with the Easter Bunny? :> )

He is infinitely kind and forgiving, but also infinitely just. Justice requires punishment for wrongdoing.

[snipped parting of company]
I contend that a history of punishing people has failed to change their behaviour. It's time we tried an alternative approach,. The aim should be to treat commission of crime as indicating aberration on the part of the perpetrator. The object should be to rehabilitate them back into society. Only when that fails should they be removed.

That sounds great - now define rehabilitation. Is taking them off the streets for a time rehabilitation? And how does this square with recidivism, especially high among sex offenders? "Three strikes and you're out" seem too much leniency for rapists and molesters (as well as murderers and near-murderers).

Punishment and 'an eye for an eye' is simply a very flawed, primitive, concept that leads inevitably to a blind and toothless society.

True - but isn't it the role of government to protect its citizens, even if it's from other of its citizens? I'm not saying that if you shoot someone, your dominant hand should be cut off. And, the justice that lead to this point in the discussion, God's justice, is quite plain. "I know you can't do this by yourself - that's why I've provided a safety net for you. However, I'm not going to make you use it - you've got to accept it for yourself." It's not eye-for-eye, it's all-or-nothing. (That may not seem much better to you, but there is a subtle difference.)

If people thought right in the first place, they wouldn't commit crime. We should therefore encourage them to think right. (No, I am not advocating 1984's Thought Police... :-) Thinking should never be a crime and all of us should be free to think and express our thoughts without fear. It is when thought becomes anti-social action that suppression is required. That suppression can be humane and civilized or it can be ruthless and cruel. A decent society would favour the former.

Not that you need it to support your view (nor are you required to defend it to me)... But, in your opinion, how would a "human and civilized" society deal with the crimes I mentioned above?

Mercy means that He accepts someone else's payment for our wrongdoings, so we don't have to suffer punishment ourselves. All we have to do is claim that payment.

Nope. I can't do that. I don't want anybody (not even God made flesh) paying for the wrongs I have done. I'll do that myself, thank you. I consider recognising the need for that and working it out, as part of my personal growth.

And, as it deals with other men, this is as it should be, IMO. According to the Bible, though, this doesn't square things up with God. (If, though, as you believe, He doesn't exist - then, you're good to go.)

The above is not intended to be offensive to devout Christians and I apologise unreservedly if you find it so. I'm trying to honestly convey some of the confusion that Christianity gives rise to in me, at least.
I wasn't - and my answers aren't an attempt to "change you" or "make you see the light" or anything like that. Just trying to help dispel your confusion. :)
I know that and thank you. It is rare to have a civilized discussion where people feel strongly, differ, but are prepared to examine issues in a spirit of goodwill. Your answers have given me some insight into how you view these same issues, but, as you might expect, I am not persuaded.

And these replies were in the same vein. (This is kinda fun...)

Gotta go now... there are some guys in hoods setting fire to a cross on my front lawn... must be Christians, I guess... It's a very violent religion....:-)
You think that's bad, just wait until Allah's followers come to your town!

Well, they'll be as welcome as anybody else who behaves properly... :-) We still practise the right to freedom of religion and speech here. Of course, if you start blowing things up, then you may find those rights curtailed... Freedom is a privilege (not, as popularly supposed, a right...); those who don't deserve it, should lose it.

True. But, let me assure you, my friend - when it comes to their religion, you're just as much an infidel as I am! :(

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bored already ? But also a Thursday spoiler thoughts
    ... Are you saying is was Jesus' idea that this should happen? ... The relationship between God the father and God the son ... Either you're saying that it's Christianity, specifically, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Move to bar General Synod membership to the over 70s
    ... That doesn't excuse any Christian for living in sin. ... degrading sex-acts are an "Abomination" before God. ... Even Jesus stated "By their fruits shall ye know them" ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Move to bar General Synod membership to the over 70s
    ... Testaments I see God recognising whatever the local culture and society ... That doesn't excuse any Christian for living in sin. ... that breaks the two commandments Jesus gave us. ... who ate with sinners ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... Now that's the difference you are not god. ... I thought the whole point of forgiveness is you having a clean slate. ... see sin as not affecting other people. ... Not at all - I am assured that Jesus has died for my wrongdoing. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Theories/models of the atonement -- was Re: calling all christians...prayer needed for s
    ... Two of the positions, penal substitution and ransom, I reject totally because they seem to me to paint a false picture of God; they make God a divinity who is rigidly legalistic, selfish and in many forms of the theory, arbitrary. ... Such people may well be every bit as "Christian" as I am, so I cannot say they should not hold them - though I can try to make them think about them further! ... Before looking at them, I want to point out that all the theories start from an assumption, namely that our sins cannot be forgiven unless God *does* something, in Jesus. ... It did not make it possible for God to forgive, as though without that death etc he would have been unable to forgive, as though God required some transaction, some recompense for human sin before forgiveness could be offered. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)