What is The Atonement?

They are only analogies Legend. You liking one over the other makes neither a complete expression of the way it is.You say the Judge one is poor because the Law is above him. A weakness in that part of the analogy. Now add the biblical bit where the Judge IS the one who has set the law and against who you are offending. Strenghten the analogy and reiterate

You never demonstrated (biblically) why Matthew 25 must be seen in causal light and not consequential light. It can be eitherYou have not answered why 'do' means (biblically) anything less than a command. A command is a command is it not. A law is a law. It not?Plenty of repitition as to what light this should be seen. That logic says it must mean this etc, that my reality proves it etc. On the one hand "The bible says" on the other "the bible isn't accurate"Show the bible backs up what (you say) the bible says or lets leave it at that Jar. I'm done with all "your own reality" and "this bit of the map is correct that isn't" subjectivity

First, I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said what you quote me as saying. It should be easy, you even placed my comment in quotes. Huh? We'll in many ways the Bible is not accurate or even consistent. That's not opinion, it's fact. I have, repeatedly. Praise GOD for small miracles.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Quotes can also be used to paraphrase. Which is what I was doing. "Damnation by not trying hard enough" was I understood your position. Is it not?Matthew 25 doesn't indicate cause over consequence in itself. Your frequent reference to Jesus 'do and don't' (command words) not being commands has yet to be demonstrated biblically. You have frequently mentioned 'try' and despite the request to tie the infrequent NT words 'try' and 'trying' with salvation/damnation you have avoided doing so.Do is do until demonstrated otherwise. Or so I would have thought Asserted but not shown. Never mind, it would get us way of track. Point being, you seem to assume Matthew is accurate but don't show biblically why that is and say, Paul, isn't. Just Jars opinion - which is as valid as any others.You seem to revert to asserting inconsistancy between Jesus and Paul based on the assumption of the point you have yet biblically to demonstrate.That's bootstrap territory Jar

Okay. So you are trying to paraphrase my position. Fine. But I think you've gotten it wrong.That's probably my fault, I'm old, slow and often have a hard time making myself understood. So let me try again.Salvation is given. It was given by GOD to all mankind.The gift is free. Gratas. Without strings. Done deal. To all, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Pagan, Satanist, Rastafarian, Confucian, Taoist, everybody.That's the end of that story.As to Matthew 25, you can fudge it and misread it anyway you want to give YOU the warm fuzzies. That's fine. I don't really care how you twist it.But It's actually pretty damn clear and simple. In case you don't have a copy handy, I'll include it again. It starts by saying that ALL people a gathered together. Everyone. Atheist and Christian, Jew and Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist, Taoist and Rastafarian; all people. Everybody.Next they are divided into two groups, the sheep and the goats.It goes on to explain how the selections are made, and the explanation is based on behavior. No mention of belief. No mention of profession EXCEPT by the Goats. They are shocked. They thought they would be the ones saved.The talk is also very clear that the behavior of those saved was NOT because they were Christians. It's not their belief that motivated their behavior, else they would not have been surprised. A Christian knows that what he does for others is also for Christ. Look at the condemnation in John 3.The GOATs are believers. They are followers of Christ, Christians. They, like many Christians just didn't understand what GOD wants us to do.The Atonement is done. GOD has forgiven. But GOD also has asked us to try, that word again, to live a good life. It's the message of the Bible from Genesis right on through. The story of Adam & Eve are about that. The whole Knowledge of Good & Evil is about that.We are expected to try to do what's right.We cannot succeed or reach perfection. GOD knows that. She is not stupid, afterall, it made us.But we must try to love ourselves, treat others as we would like them to treat us, and that is called Loving GOD. It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So the OT does not specify that the Mosaic Laws were to be kept perfectly (without flaw) to be declared righteous and Jesus did not state in the NT that the Mosaic Laws were to be kept perfectly (without flaw) to be declared righteous.Neither God in the OT nor Jesus state that the Mosaic Law is impossible to follow perfectly (without flaw).

quote:

---

"If you look at a woman lustfully you have.."

---

That is not part of the Mosaic Law.

quote:

---

"If you are angry with your brother, you have"

---

Also not part of the Mosaic Law.

quote:

---

"Love God with all your heart.."

---

Oddly enough, this one isn't really a part of the Mosaic Law.

quote:

---

"Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself"

---

The law that pertains to this is The teaching was from Hillel as a summary of the Torah. Roughly, if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others. Again what was said in the NT isn't really from the Mosaic Law.

quote:

---

"Do" this, that and the other and you will be saved.

---

This has nothing to do with my question, but it also does not summarize the Sermon on the Mount. I'm discussing whether the Law was required and/or impossible for individuals to follow perfectly (without flaw).The Mosaic Laws also said "do" or "do not", but the fact that God forgave those who repented in the OT, shows that he did not expect people to always follow the Law perfectly (without flaw). God also did not imply that it is impossible for anyone to follow the Law perfectly (without flaw) and be considered righteous. There are people in the Bible who are considered righteous and blameless under the law. The Mosaic Laws were their legal system. Just like our legal system today. While it may be impossible for an entire nation to be perfectly law abiding all at one time, it is not impossible for one person to obey the laws perfectly (without flaw).

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

You seem well able to imagine this anguish, and you seem confident enough to preach what God's view is, where do you get this belief that you are somehow authorised to speak on behalf of god. You constantly patronise with "you wouldn't/couldn't Understand" type statements when the truth is you don't understand yourself, but you are not content with not understanding so you choose to believe, this raises you (in your own mind) to a position of power, a delusion that you understand the meaning of life. a delusion that you are going to "heaven", a delusion that you are somehow better than everyone else. Every time you clarify a point all you are doing is presenting your reading, your interpretation. For each one of you there are a thousand others who have a different take on things.What convinces you that you have got it right? I want this cleared up... You say you are guaranteed a place in heaven because you believe... you can break god's law without fear of condemnation. You can, in effect, rampage around the place breaking God's laws (kill...covet....etc..)and still go to heaven? Are we in the presence of a god? Do you really see yourself in such an exhalted position? above the rest of humanity? Oh but Iano... How can a mere mortal lkike you hope to understand the workings of god? *waves hand* But in a different thread.. (Random god rant) you defended the position that a child, born disabled, is suffering punishment for it's fathers sins. How do you reconcile this? How do you reconcile this with the fact that we are doomed to hell for Eve's slip up in the Garden? from the moment of birth, before even taking our first breath... how have we sinned at such an early stage? what sin is "My own"?

I appreciate the time taken to reiterate your stance. I know how long posts take to assemble. But I can't see how I can discuss these issues with you Jar Its a message from the pieces of the Bible you take to be accurately relating your version of the salvation/damnation message. I can't see how I can use the bible to counter what you say if the response will be "that bit of the bible is inaccurately interpreting the the message (as I argue it)" and "this bit of the bible is accurately reflecting the message (as I argue it)"You can see the obvious problem. Biblical discussion cannot occur if only the parts you are prepared to admit are admissable.

I read what you said here and do understand why you said it.I come along and say things like "this is the truth / there is no other truth than this one (in essence - I don't claim every word infallible) / I know it and you don't / this truth ensures I go to heaven and whilst you can have it too, if you don't then to hell you will go...etc."It is the most arrogant sounding thing a person could say. But if it IS true, it will of course sound like the most arrogant thing a person could say. It sounding arrogant and exclusive and intolerant of any other view - is precisely what you would expect - if it was true and all the other views were false. Or it could be false. But those attributes do not detract from it if it is true. Truth is intolerant of error. 2+2= 4. It cannot be 3 intolerant as that truth may seem.So why not exclude those 'attributes' from your reckoning?Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me". All I'm trying to do is to point people at Jesus - an his apparently arrogant, exclusive, intolerant sounding - yet true statement.

In there being "no condemnation for those that are in Christ" I can do precisely what I want and not go to Hell. If I want I can murder, cheat, rape and pillage and I will not go to Hell.The only fly in that potentially licenctious ointment is that when God moves in (and he does when invited), things change somewhat dramatically. The mechanics of this are that the old iano - the iano that was an enemy of God, who hated the idea of following Gods law - is dead. He is gone. He cannot come back.The new iano - the one in which God now resides, by his Spirit (note that phrase - you'll see that everything is changed "by his Spirit) has a completely different view than the old iano. The Christian loves Gods laws, he thinks they are beautiful, he wants to keep them and hates it when he doesn't. Although he can do what he wants in theory - his hearts desire is to obey God and follow his lead.I can do what I want. The thing is I don't want to do what God doesn't want me to do. Even when I do. If you see what I mean I can't help it Crevo. It's is true. You don't have to believe me. Ask him. Seek and you will find him.

That was in reponse to the idea that God can do anything at all - which was a fairly unsubstantiated *waves hand* statement. A god made-in-ones-own image might be able to exist/not exist/then exist again. But God of the bible is constrained - by his very own being.And there is ample evidence to support that view not least the lack of need to sacrifice an obviously loved son if simple waving of the hand forgivness had been possible. The disabled child is suffering the consequences of the Fall. Death, illness, disease came in. As did the infection of sin. Everyone has the infection - even the child. And everyone will die (physically) due to that infection. Our sin is a diffent matter. We will be judged not by the infection but by its outworking - our own sin.God didn't sin, God didn't spread the infection. All God does is try to save us from the consequences of it

so the child is being put to death (separate from god) for the sins of his father(adam)... or have you chosen a different definition of death to suit your argument? it seems so.
You are doing exactly what you accused Jar of doing.

Your 'Judge' analogy had very little resemblance to the situation you were trying to illustrate (God, sin, forgiveness). I've already pointed out the main one.Your 'lampstand' analogy had much more resemblance to the situation you were trying to illustrate .Therefore I think that the 'lampstand' analogy is the better one. Ok, I did that.So now, has the Judge forgiven the man ? Can the man go on living his life ?Oh no, there is a condition: the man must accept the money from the Judge to pay the fine !The Judge is not willing to just waive the fine (after all he's the one who set it in the first place). He wants something in return!This is not forgiveness. When you forgive you don't set conditions. You just forgive. Period. You said so yourself.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

iano, just to remind you that you haven't answered the question:

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

In a nutshell...and I doubt I argued any differently elsewhere:Adam sinned. When he did, he died spiritually then - and died physically later.All his offspring: you, me, the disabled child etc inherited exactly what he had: we are born with dead spirits and we are born with bodies that will die. Not only die but suffer the other consequences of the fall: sickness, disease, pain etcThe disabled child is disabled because of the fall, is suffering the consequences of the fall - even if it hasn't had the opportunity to sin itself. The child, because it is spiritually dead, has a sinful nature and so, will in time commit its own sins. When the child or anybody else dies physically, then it does so because of this disease it inherited from Adam. Then the sins it has committed come into reckoning in a spiritual sense (although a man does "reap what he sows": his sin: say excessive drinking, can be visited upon him in this life)"Put to death" is not the same as dying physically. Dying physically is just dying physically. If I may mix verses to illustrate "The wages of sin is (being put to) death" Wages are something earned. It is our own sin that earns "being put to death" Being "put to death" means being separated finally from any loving contact with God (we all experience this in life by his universal Providence: joy, happiness, tasty food,etc). Separated from this aspect of God and exposed only to his wrath.