Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sacrifice
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 64 (493144)
01-06-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Straggler
01-06-2009 7:21 AM


..cont
Straggler writes:
Surely one is either separated from God or one is not? It was my understanding that (the whole lake of fire thing apart) hell, the ultimate horror, consisted of complete separation from God. No?
Fallen man exists separated from and rejecting God in the same way that the hippies existed separated from and rejecting society. Separated and rejecting, yet Woodstock was powered by societys utility companies. VW vans were fueled by societys oil companies and dope was transported on societys airplanes.
Separate in one way, connected in another.
It appears that Hell is about all ties being broken. Even the image of God in which man is made is to be removed. Such a person will no longer be relational, no longer creative, no longer capable of or desiring love, no longer capable of finding joy and wonder and amusement in his enviroment. No longer able to hope.
-
Does it say in the bible that ones level of sin or ones previous proximity to God somehow make the effect of this separation worse? Or are these your own conclusions (arguably) based on a need to make the "facts" fit the story?
I'm sure we could do a Bible study on it but a selection from Psalm 51 might suffice for now. You're probably familiar with the story of David who is a man after Gods own heart and much favoured by God. Listen to him as he laments the effects of his adultery with Bathsheeba and his murder of her husband. The previous closeness has become a yawning gulf of which David despairs and desires to return to.
quote:
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
14 Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
the God who saves me,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
-
If we are considering the nature of predetermination and freewill from the perspective of God then, much like the discussion regarding the nature of temporary separation from God in an eternal frame of reference, we are drawn to a stalemate by our mutual ignorance of eternity. I will accept that.
Okay..
-
However in the case of Jesus and freewill we are not talking about predetermination from God's perspective. We are considering predetermination from man's perspective.
Was not the sacrifice of Christ to atone for our sins supposedly foretold and known to man? Is it not a much vaunted "fact" of Chrsitianity that the Old Testament predicted the happenings of the New Testament?
Given that man knew of this predetermined act of sacrifice (if willing to recognise it as such) how can we meaningfully claim that Jesus acted of his own freewill? And if he did not act of his own freewill how can any form of sacrifice on the part of Christ meaningfully be claimed?
The stalemate on eternity means we can't comment for sure on how things work there. That isn't to say we can't comment on how it might work.
If it is the nature of eternity that God occupies all points in time "now" then Christs freewilled choice to go to the cross (in time) was something God knew about at the same "time" as the Old Testament prophecies were being spoken. Clearly the prophecy can be spoken in the light of that knowledge and the "prediction" is safe and sure - without at all determining that Christ had to go to the cross.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 7:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 5:35 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 64 (493149)
01-06-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
01-06-2009 11:14 AM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Straggler writes:
You make your points well and it does indeed seem that the form of faith that you advocate is, by and large, not the one I am railing against.
Thanks. You do too.
I'm glad that much has been communicated. It would hopefully mean that a good portion of the faith-objection can be parked insofar as it has any bearing on your being saved or not.
-
However
1) There are many out there less "liberal" in view than you regarding this matter
2) The point remains that an emphasis on faith, flawed and easily abused tool that it indisputably remains, is still more readily explained by human desire to deceive or self-delude than as a method of an omnipotent being disclosing the the truth.
I'm still convinced that a man believe God or he will "burn". It's just that I think this view correctly pinpoints the scriptural fulcrum of salvation. It also happens to accomodate clear biblical indications that God wants that none perish - which must include a mechanism of salvation that would reach to all who can never heard of Christ.
Later, on your criticism of faith
It has to be said that you are beginning to sound more and more like (Ex EvC member) Jar as time goes on................. and he was quite often in serious disagreement with the more fundamentalist members here.
Jar denied and ridiculed just about every element that is central to orthodox Christianity so the comparison is one I thankfully won't be donning
I'm pretty orthodox really. This view (placing the tipping point of salvation where I do) belongs more in the Calvinism/Arminianism sub-debate than it does to mainstream issues.
-
Then there seems to be no real requirement for either religion or faith?
In terms of your being saved or not - it would appear no. Abram/Abraham - the one whose experience is presented as the model by which salvation is wrought, was a pagan at the time.
-
It also has to be said that none of the above passages remotely touch on the inherently flawed nature of faith and the question of why any God would choose to put such emphsais on something so flawed and easily abused.
The use of faith is flawed if it doesn't achieve Gods purpose - only. Any perceived flaws would be just that - perceived.
Given that we have dispensed with God emphasising faith for the purposes of salvation where do you suppose he actually applies it and is it flawed in that setting?. Like, the fact that there are zillions of faiths isn't problematic if a persons salvation doesn't rely on that kind of faith.
-
Why "Blessed are those who believe but do not see" rather than "Blessed are those who seek to discard the false and verify the true by means of experiment and reason"?
It wouldn't give those who are less gifted in those areas a fair crack of the whip? God wants that all be saved, not just the rational/intellectual/scientifically orientated ones?
The ones who "believe without seeing" are blessed precisely because they believe without seeing (have faith). That is to say: in order to believe without seeing you would need to be part of that category of people called "the saved" - otherwise you wouldn't believe without seeing (have faith).
They are blessed because they are saved - having faith being a marker (not cause) of the saved. Your folk are still seeking and aren't yet saved.
-
That is quite an assumption. I have always thought that the whole wily, deceitful talking snake thing was a particularly unfair addition to the scenario. Given freewill and God's commands alone, man might have stood a chance even taking into account his (God given - it has to be said) naivety and inherently inquisitive nature. But throw in the tempting talking snake and the outcome seems all but inevitable.
This'd probably end in another stalemate.
They understood linguistic concepts pretty well so its safe to suppose they understood death as a negative outcome if not knowing anything of the full ramifications (hell, we don't even actually know what death and its ramifications is like). Indeed Eve indicates she understands the prohibition. On the other hand there was some fruit which was only rendered desirable in a special way after the temptation. Other than that it was made just like any other fruit: pleasing to the eye and desirable for food
Before the temptation you have prohibition and nothing uniquely desirable about the fruit. That doesn't appear like a balanced choice to me.
One could argue back and forth on it but if total-relationship or no is one of Gods ultimate objectives (because that is ultimately what is going to happen) then balanced choice would appear a reasonable supposition.
-
So simple freewill and the choice as to whether to accept God or not is not sufficiant? Instead we are besieged with trickery, trapdoors and pitfalls at every turn?
Why is God so intent on seeing us fail? Why does he feel the need to introduce the talking snake (metaphorically speaking now) at every opportunity?
Er... the biblical position would appear to be that we haven't got freewill. Only Adam and Eve had. Instead we have the (effectively) same position whereby:
a) we, if left to own devices, would only ever do evil all the time and would choose against God. That is our nature - and not at all a free one.
b) countering that and providing an opposite force (as it were) is the conscience (or the knowledge of good and evil) that Adam and Eve picked up along with a new sinful nature.
Those two forces combined, set up an (effective) choice situation for everyone. That it's bloody, pain soaked battle right the way down the line arises out of the existance of evil both in satan and in turn, us. Him and him influencing us causes it to be as it is. God is the one combatting that evil and the one who will eventually overcome.
I gotta go Straggler - my Bible study and a rip in that Porsche beckon. Good talking to you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 4:28 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 174 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 64 (493160)
01-06-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
01-06-2009 12:48 PM


Nature of Faith - Side Issue Now Closed
Straggler writes:
I am happy to leave the "nature of faith" side of things at that and get back to the more specific issue of sacrifice. Feel free to have a last word on faith in response to this post if you so wish.
Iano writes:
I'm glad that much has been communicated. It would hopefully mean that a good portion of the faith-objection can be parked insofar as it has any bearing on your being saved or not.
Indeed.
Needless to say I don't accept everything you say in your post but, as previously agreed, lets leave the "nature of faith" side issue at that. Until next time at least.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 01-06-2009 12:48 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 174 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 34 of 64 (493167)
01-06-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
01-06-2009 11:27 AM


Re: ..cont
It appears that Hell is about all ties being broken. Even the image of God in which man is made is to be removed. Such a person will no longer be relational, no longer creative, no longer capable of or desiring love, no longer capable of finding joy and wonder and amusement in his enviroment. No longer able to hope.
And it is this, this full separation, that you are claiming that Christ experienced whilst being forsaken on the cross? "No longer relational, no longer creative, no longer capable of or desiring love". Christ himself was in this position, is that what you are saying?
The stalemate on eternity means we can't comment for sure on how things work there. That isn't to say we can't comment on how it might work.
Well anyone can speculate I guess.........
If it is the nature of eternity that God occupies all points in time "now" then Christs freewilled choice to go to the cross (in time) was something God knew about at the same "time" as the Old Testament prophecies were being spoken. Clearly the prophecy can be spoken in the light of that knowledge and the "prediction" is safe and sure - without at all determining that Christ had to go to the cross.
The issue, as already stated, is not the knowledge of any eternal being involved. The issue relates to the non-eternal agents and their ability to exhibit freewill in the light of God given prophecy in time as we experience it. For those lacking an eternal perspective (i.e. you and me for starters) a prediction of this sort produces all sorts of dilemmas. Particularly if one is cognisant of the predicted action.
Jesus was fully aware of the old testament predictions yes? He was fully aware that man had been previously informed, by God, of his intended fate yes? Given that, from the non-eternal normal flow of time as experienced by man perspective, it was quite obvious that God had already seen the future-Jesus crucified and forsaken how can it be claimed that Jesus had any freewill at all regarding this matter? If freewill is not the ability to choose between alternative futures what is it?
If God tells a man the choices he will make in the future how can the man, knowing what he now knows, claim any freewill at the point of making the choice in question given that he already knows the outcome? Does he realistically have the choice to do that which God has quite clearly stated he will not do? How can he possibly choose to do that which God has already informed him he will not do?
The implications for freewill are enormous.
OR, conversely, the implications for biblical prophecy are enormous.
So Christ did not have to go to the cross? So freewill can overturn biblical prophecy? Biblical prophecy is not cast in stone when it relates to matters of freewill.
Does that include man's freewill? Can man exhibit freewill such that biblical prophecies can be avoided?
But elsewhere (msg 32 I believe) you stated that man has no freewill.......
Now I am confused . I was under the impression that the whole Christian concept of mans salvation, good, evil etc. etc. relied in large part on the concept of mans freewill? No?
SUMMARY - THE STORY SO FAR
We have now narrowed the discussion to 1) The nature of Christ's sacrifice and 2) The inevitability/freewill issue as regards the prophecy of this sacrifice.
There is a third area that I think needs to be continued. That of necessity for Christ's sacrifice.
Why did God deem it necessary for Christ to be sacrficed to pay for mans sins? Why could he not instead forfeit "his right to exact the righteous retribution due him" as you put it in msg 20?
This along with points 1) and 2) are the remaining areas for discussion as far as I can see.
Good talking to you. But these in depth discussions are taking their toll on my personal life. I think it is time I sought forgiveness from a higher power. My wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 01-06-2009 11:27 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 01-07-2009 6:37 AM Straggler has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 64 (493178)
01-06-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
01-06-2009 11:14 AM


...cont
...just finishing where I left off
-
Straggler writes:
I think that there is a very good case to be made for religion, and an associated reliance on faith, to be just such a lie. Designed to appeal to a certain kind of person.
I'd agree with you - given that Christian faith too can be utilised as a lie. It seems an uncircumventable fact that people professing Christ will be among those pleading "Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name?"
Only to be turned away by him.
-
Hmmmm. OK. Ish. I am happy to leave the "nature of faith" side of things at that and get back to the more specific issue of sacrifice. Feel free to have a last word on faith in response to this post if you so wish.
Fair enough.
-
Well actually..... More recently I have been having some interesting discussions on EvC type topics with a Muslim acquaintence on a different and less specific forum. But my exposure is admittedly limited.
Don't forget to ask what has to be done by you in order that you achieve a positive afterlife outcome. If the answer is anything but "nothing" or an explanation leading to "nothing" then add Islam that to the works-based Religions column in your head.
-
Iano hast spoken!! That's a bit assertive!!
Sorry. That wasn't my intention. I figured the distinction between saving faith and post-salvation faith was now agreed upon sufficiently - as to render moot further reference to post-salvation faith contributing to salvation.
Later, on your other posts Straggler. And by all means trim these posts back to what interests you - skimming those aspects of my response that cause the focus to leak.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 11:14 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (493181)
01-06-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
01-06-2009 7:38 AM


Re: Sacrifice & Truth
Straggler writes:
I have asked Iano and I will ask you too: Did Jesus have freewill?
How can freewill be compatible with prophecy? And if Jesus did not have freewill it must somewhat dampen the the reverence with which we should view his sacrifice. No?
For sure, Jesus had freewill, as does God himself. Satan knew that so Satan tempted him. Jesus's mind was/is the essence of his father, Jehovah. Jesus and Jehovah, his father shared one spirit, the Holy Spirit. Unlike Satan, there was nothing in his thinking which would interest him in opposing anything relative to his father, God/Jehovah.
Prophecy is foreknowledge, not fore-establishment; foreknowledge of what man would do and foreknowledge of what God's response to man's actions would be.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 7:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2009 6:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 64 (493197)
01-07-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-02-2009 7:08 PM


straggler writes:
Why sacrifice? - Why was any of this sacrifice stuff even necessary? If God wants to give man an opportunity for salvation, the opportunity to repent for his 'original sin',
You may notice that a huge part of the Jewish religion was built around the sacrifices of animals by the high priest who's role was to offer them to God to gain forgiveness for the people. Before sin, Adam & Eve had direct contact with God, but after they sinned, that contact was cut off and they became alienated from him.
Essentially, When Adam & Eve rebelled, they gave up their perfect human lives & contact with God leading them to sin and death. That means we are all born into the same condition, except that, we didnt choose this life...it was imposed upon us.
Death is the result of sin, and because we are born in sin, we are also born into death.
Sin is like having a debt, we have no choice but to pay it. And we can only pay for our own individual debt. No other sinful person can pay it for us.
quote:
Romans 6:23 'For the wages sin pays is death'
In order to rectify this situation, God provided us with another 'perfect, sinsless' man (Jesus) to pay that debt (death) for us. This is what Jesus did. He offered himself as the 'Ransom Price' on our behalf. By offering God his perfect human life, he Paid the debt for ALL mankind.
quote:
Hebrews 9:24-26 'For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us. 25Neither is it in order that he should offer himself often, as indeed the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood not his own. 26Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
stragler writes:
Is the death of Jesus a big deal?
We could say that YES, the sacrifice of Jesus was a big deal because to be released from the debt of sin & eternal death, it was the only way.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2009 7:08 PM Straggler has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 64 (493203)
01-07-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
01-06-2009 5:35 PM


Re: ..cont
Straggler writes:
And it is this, this full separation, that you are claiming that Christ experienced whilst being forsaken on the cross? "No longer relational, no longer creative, no longer capable of or desiring love". Christ himself was in this position, is that what you are saying?
I wouldn't think so, given that the above fate of man refers to his existance in Hell and the foresaking of Christ occurred whilst he was alive. I can try a erect an analogy if you like - but understand that I'm trying to model an experience you haven't yet had (and I've only seen through a glass darkly) - so be kind.
You're living in a pre-welfare state world and money concerns colour your outlook as dye permeates a cloth. Having to do with your food supply, your warmth, your health, a roof over your head, your safety, your friendships, etc, etc it is understandable that money concerns permate your life so. Then you win the lotto.
The life dyed dark with money worries bleachs white as snow. Thats not to say you wouldn't have other worries but were concentrating only on this contrast. As if it modelled all the worries you could have about anything. You've stepped from darkness to light: so savour it for a moment. Let that notion touch you.
Jesus on the cross was a God who had already stripped himself of much of his glory in order to stoop down into our world - to save us. But there was one element of his godlieness that hadn't been touched by the journey. He was still completely holy and as, such had perfect communion both with himself (he had no neurosis, no hang-ups, no shame) and with his father. In being foresaken, in having the perfect communion broken, in having shame heaped upon him, he went from a man who hadn't a money care in the world to being a man utterly impoverished.
A lost man doesn't have that relationship with God in order that he would understand what it is to loose it. Not even a poor man become rich can grasp what it is to be perpetually rich and become poor. I gave you that model in part attempt however.
A sacrifice is like a burn. The degree of suffering and damage has to do with the temperature difference between you and what's burning you. Jesus, being in perfect communion with self and his father, was once at the same 'temperature' as the father. Being forsaken meant massive distance created - as far as the east if from the west - leading to horrendous burning.
-
The issue, as already stated, is not the knowledge of any eternal being involved. The issue relates to the non-eternal agents and their ability to exhibit freewill in the light of God given prophecy in time as we experience it. For those lacking an eternal perspective (i.e. you and me for starters) a prediction of this sort produces all sorts of dilemmas. Particularly if one is cognisant of the predicted action.
Lets see.
-
Jesus was fully aware of the old testament predictions yes? He was fully aware that man had been previously informed, by God, of his intended fate yes? Given that, from the non-eternal normal flow of time as experienced by man perspective, it was quite obvious that God had already seen the future-Jesus crucified and forsaken how can it be claimed that Jesus had any freewill at all regarding this matter? If freewill is not the ability to choose between alternative futures what is it?
If we consider a prophecy to be just as (I think) you say, based on something having been seen happening by God - by direct observation of it happening - then we enter a loop. Jesus knows what God has seen what Jesus will do. Or willed to do. But foreknowledge of what I will freely choose is mere observation of the event fed back before the event. But observation is a passive act, it doesn't shape events in a determining way.
We have Jesus himself telling us of his will. He prays to the father that this terrifying cup pass him by. That is what he wants and he isn't suggesting that God can't do this. He tells us in fact that that decision would be a question only of Gods will. The existance of prophecy isn't seen as a barrier to the prayer. If it was then the prayer becomes a pointless act joke and Jesus wasn't the kind of man to engage in pointless acts.
-
If God tells a man the choices he will make in the future how can the man, knowing what he now knows, claim any freewill at the point of making the choice in question given that he already knows the outcome? Does he realistically have the choice to do that which God has quite clearly stated he will not do? How can he possibly choose to do that which God has already informed him he will not do?
Like I say, it would depend on how God gets his foreknowledge. If it's by observing what happens in time - then "going back in time" to tell the person what they did (will do - from their perspective) then it too is mere reporting of an observation. An observation doesn't shape events. It merely observes them.
-
So Christ did not have to go to the cross? So freewill can overturn biblical prophecy? Biblical prophecy is not cast in stone when it relates to matters of freewill.
Same point applies here.
-
But elsewhere (msg 32 I believe) you stated that man has no freewill.......
Now I am confused . I was under the impression that the whole Christian concept of mans salvation, good, evil etc. etc. relied in large part on the concept of mans freewill? No?
There are various shadings. Arminianism would view man as being able to choose for God/against God. Calvinism would view man being unable to choose for/against God, instead God choose this man and not that man according to a set of criteria as yet unknown.
I'd view it that man can't choose for God but can choose against God. His lack of choice for God renders his will other than free (in the classic, master-of-own-destiny sense). God himself takes up position in order to restore a balance to things: all men will be saved unless they chose to be lost.
My position would align reasonably well with Arminianism in effect (mans choice is ultimately what determines his eternal destination) but differs in order to accomodate what appears to be clear biblical indications that man can't choose for God. Arminianism seems to insert the equivilent of Einsteins clunky Cosmological Constant in order to get the result that scripture elsewhere demands.
Calvinism is a contorted, mangled mess rationally and scripturally .
-
SUMMARY - THE STORY SO FAR
We have now narrowed the discussion to 1) The nature of Christ's sacrifice and 2) The inevitability/freewill issue as regards the prophecy of this sacrifice.
Okay.
-
There is a third area that I think needs to be continued. That of necessity for Christ's sacrifice.
Why did God deem it necessary for Christ to be sacrificed to pay for mans sins? Why could he not instead forfeit "his right to exact the righteous retribution due him" as you put it in msg 20?
I'll start a new post entitled "necessity of Christs sacrifice" utilising the elements of the discussion pertaining to this issue. It'll keep things less cluttered. Perhaps do the same with each of the other two items?
-
Good talking to you. But these in depth discussions are taking their toll on my personal life. I think it is time I sought forgiveness from a higher power. My wife.
I'm engaged to be married in June. Are you telling me I'll have to give this up then??
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 5:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2009 2:11 PM iano has replied
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2009 8:49 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 64 (493217)
01-07-2009 8:33 AM


Straggler writes:
There is a third area that I think needs to be continued. That of necessity for Christ's sacrifice.
Why did God deem it necessary for Christ to be sacrificed to pay for mans sins? Why could he not instead forfeit "his right to exact the righteous retribution due him" as you put it in msg 20?
Exacting righteous retribution from another involves the accounting practice of "eye for an eye". That is the nature of righteous justice: no emotion, no sentimentality, no getting off with a light sentence - just the most exact accounting (taking all things into consideration). Such justice would righteously deal with a blow received via method A (eg: betrayal of trust) by returning an equivilent blow via method B (eg: retraction of friendship). The account is settled with no justification for further rancour on either side.
But my friend decides to forfeit that right. When he does this he must absorb the pain of the blow required-to-be-issued-by-justice into himself. His sense of justice has been seared, he has been betrayed, he has been hurt - and one of the ways to balance the books is denied by his decision. So there is only the other way: absorb that blow himself.
We all know what it feels to be wronged - yet have no course of redress involving the other paying. It hurts us, we are offended amd righteously angered. The requirement that justice be done cries out within us - demanding expression. Unless, that is, we decide to absorb that pain into ourselves, to say "no" to the desire inside us demanding we in turn lash out at the offender. And to keep on saying "no" until the fist pummels at us no more. It hurts us to forfeit our right to exact retribution.
We need to remind ourselves that Jesus is God. Thus we can say that the blow God is justified in issuing out, in return for the offence against him, is absorbed by himself - God. In the case where someone is saved that is..
Otherwise.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2009 12:29 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 64 (493224)
01-07-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
01-06-2009 9:05 AM


What do you want to do with this Straggler?
The fulcrum of salvation:
Straggler writes:
So what exactly are the criteria for being saved? And where are they defined? My understanding is that the vast majority of humanity remain unsaved (and this certainly fits with what ICANT, for example, seems to be saying) and will therefore face eternal damnation. Is this incorrect according to your version of Christian thought?
This seems like an interesting take on God's perspective on morality. You seem to be saying that if Hitler (to take an obvious and stereotypically extreme example) considers the extermination of the Jews and the invasion of Europe as morally justified and perfectly legitimate but agonises over the fact that he stole some money from a friend because he believes this action to be immoral and wrong - That God will recognise the moral anguish in his heart at his wrongdoing and consider him a man of conscience?
-
Omnipotence:
1) A God that cannot lie, for example, is not omnipotent. Unless of course you define "omnipotence" in terms of what God can and cannot do. Such a God, a god of definitions, serves as little more than a debating tactic. We have discussed this before and I feel little worth in going over this area here. I can locate and continue that previous discussion if you are so inclined?
-
God: subject to his laws or not.
2) It seems very arbitrary as to which of God's laws God is compelled to obey himself and which he is not. When I have asked about God's actions in relation to the commandments I have been told, by yourself and others, that God is not constrained by such things. However now you speak of God's laws as all inclusive. Even of Him. This is contradictory and frankly suggests that you guys are making it up as we go along.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 9:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2009 1:26 PM iano has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (493244)
01-07-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
01-07-2009 6:37 AM


Re: ..cont
Iano writes:
Jesus on the cross was a God....
Mmmm, no. Jesus was/is the son of the supreme majesty/god Jehovah, the one and only god of the universe sent to earth by his heavenly father, Jehovah whom he addressed as his god as he hung on the cross relative to the moments of being forsaken by God.
Jehovah, God, father of Jesus occupied the throne of Heaven as the sin offering for man's sins, i.e. Jesus was paying the sin death penalty upon the cross on earth.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 01-07-2009 6:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2009 3:52 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 46 by iano, posted 01-07-2009 5:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 42 of 64 (493246)
01-07-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
01-07-2009 2:11 PM


Re: ..cont
Mmmm, no. Jesus was/is the son of the supreme majesty/god Jehovah, the one and only god of the universe sent to earth by his heavenly father, Jehovah whom he addressed as his god as he hung on the cross relative to the moments of being forsaken by God.
Jehovah, God, father of Jesus occupied the throne of Heaven as the sin offering for man's sins, i.e. Jesus was paying the sin death penalty upon the cross on earth.
How does this hold with the Trinity belief that "God" encompasses the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, meaning that Jesus is God?
Or do you not believe in the Trinity that way? It's hard to keep all of the particular beliefs of all denominations of Christianity down. I was raised in Congregtional/Prebyterian/Christian Reformed churches, but didn't have any real experience with all of the other thousands of Christian varieties. I know that many of them have differing views about things even so major as the Trinity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2009 2:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2009 11:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 43 of 64 (493247)
01-07-2009 4:11 PM


Hardly a big deal
Jesus' 'sacrifice' is really very underwhelming.
A few hours on a cross for an eternal being who knows that He is going to be wandering about Palestine a few days later and will then be sat at the right hand side of Himself again really is quite an embarrassing thing to get excited about.
I would have more repect for the Christian God if He had the integrity to apologise to mankind for all the horrendous suffering He has caused us through His ineptitude.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Bailey, posted 01-07-2009 5:11 PM Brian has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 44 of 64 (493252)
01-07-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Brian
01-07-2009 4:11 PM


ass,u,me
Thanks for the exchange.
I would have more repect for the Christian God if He had the integrity to apologise to mankind for all the horrendous suffering He has caused us through His ineptitude.
lol - the only thing supposing He would not are 'christians' and imaginations ...
Sure you wanna trust 'em?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling
Edited by Bailey, : grammer

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Brian, posted 01-07-2009 4:11 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 01-07-2009 5:40 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 64 (493255)
01-07-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bailey
01-07-2009 5:11 PM


Re: ass,u,me
I suppose it would be difficult to trust Yahweh.
Of all the gods I have read about Yahweh really is portrayed as the thickest. I have had this image of Yahweh in my mind for a long time that he is the divine equivalent of the 'strange' cousin that no one mentions.
The other gods in the Canaanite pantheon must cringe when someone mentions Yahweh at their celestial dinner parties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bailey, posted 01-07-2009 5:11 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024