Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sacrifice
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 5 of 64 (492839)
01-03-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-02-2009 7:08 PM


Hi there Straggler..
A key part of the Christian story is the idea of sacrifice. The death of Jesus, the sacrifice of God's very own son, such that mans sins could be forgiven by God.
Apparently if we recognise this sacrifice and seek forgiveness for our inherently sinful nature then we will be rewarded with salvation and avoid eternal damnation.
Such is my understanding from conversing with born again Christians here and elsewhere.
Is my understanding essentially correct?
In terms of the above elements being componants of the overall "engine of salvation" I'd say yes. But I wouldn't be of the opinion that they can be assembled together to form a working model. Some other componants are required - starting with:
1. God attempts to convince man that man is (lets call it) "rotten in his heart"
2. Man becomes convinced by Gods argument and believes God in this matter.
(nb:there is no requirement that a man believe in God, believe in the existance of God or even that a man have heard of God/the Bible in order for the above to take place. All that's required is that man have a conscience)
The above being the criterion satisfied by which a man is saved, the elements of salvation can now be applied to him. These include:
3. God gives a man faith so that man believes in Christ as his saviour. Man confesses Christ his saviour
4. God justfies a man and sets him in legal rightstanding before him
5. God comes to dwell in man by his Holy Spirit.
1) What exactly was sacrificed? - Sacrifice normally implies loss or denial of some sort. I am not clear as to what exactly it is that was sacrificed or lost by God as a result of the physical death of his son?
As pointed out by ICANT, the sacrifice was separation between God the Father and God the son. There is little point in attempting to model the agony of this given that:
1. The separation took place in eternity - a realm into which we have little insight. Thus, there's no point in saying "it was only for a few hours/days..."
2. We're not holy and equal to God the Father so can't know what it's like to fall into the utter pit in his estimation. To be utterly reviled by that which you love. Imagine the look in your wifes eyes if she were to truly consider you to be guilty of molesting your children and you might begin to get a taste of it. Now keep going down and don't stop...
3. We're not the Fathers total love so can't know what it's like to be separated from that which you love totally (earthly father/son relationships form a poor measure comparatively.)
One way to begin consider the level of sacrifice involved then, is to consider the order of the being involved. Dumping a lobster into a pot of boiling water is a different matter to dumping a dog in same. Human paralleling of Gods sacrifice engages in lobster-like thinking and should be avoided. Better to raise your gaze to stratospheric.
4) 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', then surely he can just do this without any need for the whole sacrifice thing. Why the convulted and unnecessarily brutal path to redemption? If any sacrifice has actually been made why was any of it necessary in the first place?
It's very simple. The nature of foregiveness requires that the offended party pay whatever the cost of the offence is - themselves. You can't truly and completely forgive someone without doing so -whether the matter is a large one or a relative trifle. Think of any example you like and you'll find that this will be the case.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2009 7:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2009 4:58 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 15 of 64 (492964)
01-04-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
01-04-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Straggler writes:
Jesus Have Freewill
He's not called 'the second Adam' for nothing (Adam being the first and only to have free will - in my book). Perhaps you'll flesh out the title of your post later so I'll wait til then..
-
Iano. I wondered if this topic would tempt you. I suspect that you have considered the question of sacrifice in far greater detail than I have as yet. So I am glad to see that you are willing to participate.
I've not considered it in any great depth to be honest. At least not to a depth befitting it. Perhaps this is a time to do just that..
-
nb:there is no requirement that a man believe in God, believe in the existance of God or even that a man have heard of God/the Bible in order for the above to take place. All that's required is that man have a conscience)
In this respect your view would seem to be somewhat less extreme than many of the more fundamentalist Christians who insist that an eternal lake of fire awaits all those who do not follow the specifics of their particular version of Christianity.
Whilst not considering Hell to consist of a literal lake of fire, I do suppose that all those not saved will end up in a place described-as-best-as-can-be-in-terms-we-can-begin-to-appreciate ... as a lake of fire. That is to say: the actual Hell will be a place of horror and torment - if not literally a place consisting of high temperatures.
What I meant above was that the criterion for a mans salvation doesn't require that he have heard of/believe in .. Christ as his saviour. That he might believe as much after he be saved is not relevant to the issue of his salvation in the first place. The example of how salvation is wrought, given by Paul in the book of Romans (the book which describes salvation mechanics), uses Abrahams example. Old Testament Abraham was saved before Christ was born.
-
3. God gives a man faith so that man believes in Christ as his saviour. Man confesses Christ his saviour
As you are no doubt aware I have little respect for faith.
Don't stretch the analogy but until you have an orgasm you can't really preach on what it can and cannot do. Suffice to say that God is able to alter your neural network (if you insist on looking at a spiritual knowledge as an arrangement of the atoms in your brain) so that you believe in Christ as your saviour to the same degree you believe the external reality is real.
Suppose that God can open doors you couldn't imagine openable. And suppose he can ensure those doors stay open.
As a means of separating the "worthy" from the "unworthy" it is a truly appalling method.
You've missed something I think - though perhaps that's my fault.
Faith (in the sense of it being 'a knowledge of Gods existance' or 'the certainty that Christ is your saviour') is given to those who have first "believed God".
That is to say:
First you believe God.
Then you are given the evidence necessary to believe that God exists and that Christ is your saviour.
As mentioned above - you don't need to believe in God in order to believe God. If your confused on this point then ask...
1) You no more know what an "eternal perspective" is than I do. This is nothing more than wild speculation on your part.
As is often the case, the point is driven to stalemate. What we have is what is stated: Christ suffering was considered by God as sufficient to cover mens sin. Believe it or not. As mentioned earlier, the ability to believe it was is something given man by God - AFTER man has been saved. Its a belief that is subsequent to salvation - not something you have to do in order to be saved.
Consider it (the belief that Christ paid sufficiently for your sin) as part of the overall package applied to you when (I sincerely hope) you are saved.
2) This can be argued both ways. If any separation is considered eternal then so is any togetherness. In this context any separation is as equally and oppositely insignificant as it is significant in your interpretation
This would presume no more logical dimensions to be added in eternity. I would no more bet on that than I would no more logical dimensions additional to a two dimensional creatures current worldview
And yet is this not the eternal fate of all those who do not "choose" to be saved? How does the sacrifice of Jesus compare to those that face this damnation for all eternity?
The bigger they come the further they fall - and I mean that respectfully. Christ as holy and co-equal with the father has a ways further to go to be reviled in his fathers eyes than we do - us being steeped in sin as we are.
And Christ was carrying far more sin than any individual I can think of
-
So although he suffered less physically than many men have done...
//granted
and no more spiritually than many men will
// could you run that one by me again? Men who will be damned are currently spiritually dead to God. As separated from God and an understanding of God as a tone deaf mute is from composing a beautiful symphony (or so the doctrine goes)
Christ being alive spiritually to God (of course) could be potentially separated from God spiritually. On the other hand, a man who is already separated spiritually from God can only remain so. For the one there is the wrench of separation to be experienced for the other there is continuance of existance which is all he knows.
(Granted, there appears to be the further removal from man of his being made in Gods image and likeness. But that is, relatively speaking, merely the removal of a remnant of Gods image left in him, a removal of a mere vestige of God. Not at all the scale of separation from God that occurs when one is on equal footing with God.)
-
does your argument rests on the idea that Christ actually suffered more because he started from a higher place?
By the same logic could we not argue, for example, that those who are born to impoverishment and starvation are better suited to and more deserving of impoverishment and starvation than those who have known comfort and wealth?
That ones place should be accepted on the basis that those who have known better will suffer more in the face of adversity?
I'm not sure where deserving crept into your argument but it is true to say that a wealthy person will consider it more suffering to fall from a great height than will a poor person who shifts but a degree further down the scale.
But we're not talking material wealth. So the comparison is a poor one. We're talking holiness and glory and honour (all in any "good/worthy/moral" sense we might find agreement on)
-
If Jesus is God as man but only in a physical sense then he is not truly man at all. Surely what makes humanity human from a Christian perspective is the spiritual side of being not the physical. In this, most important of respects, Jesus seems to have been no more manlike than God himself for all but those few forsaken hours. Is this correct?
What is truly man?
Is it man equipped with a will that is enslaved to sin and which would only do evil all the time - were it not for the fact that he is restrained by God by way of a conscience. That is to say: man yearning for evil but restrained by Gods own voice in his ear.
Or is a true man a man who is not so enslaved but who must make his own freewilled choice when faced with temptation. A choice between the attraction that good provides and the attraction which evil entices with?
I'd say Jesus was the truest of men. One like Adam, faced with a balanced choice to go in either of two directions based on his own will. Not like us - who need the helping hand of conscience if we are to do "good"
-
One additional question. Did Jesus have a choice, did he exhibit freewill, with regard to facing his fate of crucifixion and forsakenness? Or was it predetermined and thus lacking in choice?
Predetermination is a tricky subject when it comes to a God considered by orthodoxy not to be bound by time. The basis for his knowing "what will occur" can, for example, be based on knowing what has already occurred (past and future both occupying the eternity-enrobed bubble called "time")
Thus Christs eternal choice to incarnate for the purpose of dying doesn't alter Christs in time ability to freely choose to go to the cross. If he choose not to in time then that is what would be pre (or post) determined to occur.
...later Straggler. It's late late
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2009 4:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 7:21 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 16 of 64 (493007)
01-05-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
01-04-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Straggler writes:
To take your rather bizzarre analogy to it's logical conclusion....
-
If we were to sacrificially boil a human such that no more lobsters need face that particular fate would we be entitled to expect lobster-kind to recognise, appreciate and even revere our sacrifice? Would it be reasonable for us to sentance all those subsequent lobsters who fail to embrace this sacrifice to an eternity of repeat boilings?
As already stated, I hold that a person is firstly saved - AFTER that they come to realise and believe in what Christ achieved on their behalf. Note that they wouldn't be mere lobsters after being saved - they will have been raised in terms of order, to the level of humanity. That's what a born again lobster is - a lobster who has been raised to the level of human.
Stepping back outside the analogy; a born again human is one who has been raised to the order of God by God. They are adopted sons of God. Son's are same order as parent.
As for eternally boiled lobsters? If that is the destination plumped for by them by act of own will then I can't see any injustice involved. Eternal-damnation-by-God impinges as badly on Gods justice system as does suicide-by-cop on mans justice system.
Mans will ultimately, is what attains his being eternally damned
-
If men are but lobsters as compared to God then it is only because God saw fit to make us such inferior beings. For the creator of an inferior being to punish the creation for being inferior is unjust.
He's not punishing it because it's inferior. He's punishing it because it is a moral agent who choses to do wrong in the face of knowing what is right. Inferior perhaps, but not sufficiently so to render to blame other than ours. That God in his grace and love provides a way out from underneath the demands of his wrath shouldn't deflect us from the fact he hates that we chose to do evil.
-
The nature of foregiveness requires that the offended party pay whatever the cost of the offence is - themselves. You can't truly and completely forgive someone without doing so -whether the matter is a large one or a relative trifle.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you give a specific example?
Okay.
My friend calls me around only for me to find that he's poured a good chunk of his hard earned cash into a pristine, low mileage Porsche Cayman S (which he did in fact ). He hasn't had the chance to insure it yet - the ex-owner drove it over for him. But he can start it and run it up and down the drive. It's a beaut!
The phone goes and it's his mother asking if he'd be so kind as to take a trip to the supermarket to pick up some groceries for her, so off he sets in his other car - telling me to hang about, that he'll only be an hour or so.
5 minutes later I'm out in the Porsche. Just a spin around the block you understand, nothing too wild or fancy. Whilst checking out the cars ability to stay planted to the road in tight corners, I hit a patch of oil and loose it completely. Sideways into a tree - impacting right behind the passanger seat and into the engine bay. An airbag saves my life - but the car is a complete write off.
To the issue of forgiveness.
My friend says "I forgive you; you're still my best friend and if we were in the same position tomorrow I'd leave you behind with the keys again - but you need to pay for the car". In which case what he has forgiven (or swallowed into his own account) is the inconvenience of having to wait until I get enough together to purchase another Porsche + the betrayal of trust. That's not total forgiveness however.
He could also say "I wouldn't put you under the load of trying to find that kind of money so forget about paying for the car - but don't come around here again". He's forgiven the debt but not the betrayal.
Or he could forgive it all. I remain his friend, he would trust me with his next car, and I pay nothing at all to the cost of another car. Total forgiveness mean he pays everything: the cost of the car (or doing without it should he not have enough to buy another one), the absorbing of the pain of betrayal, the worry of leaving me with his next car.
Total forgiveness means the offended pays for all aspects of the offence against him. The offender pays nothing at all and is reinstated to the position he had had he never offended.
Adam (Lukes geneology tells us) was born a son of God. He and we fell from that position. Gods forgiveness reinstates us totally (our sin is said to be as far from his sight as the east if from the west, that he remembers it no more) so much so that we become sons of God.
-
No. I still don't understand why forgiveness requires sacrifice by the forgiver in principle. Especially physical sacrifice of any kind. Especially when the forgiver is an omnipotent and omniscient being.
I'm not sure how omnipotence and omniscience alter things. God has been offended against. In order to forgive the offence he must pay the cost due himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2009 4:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2009 11:47 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 64 (493050)
01-05-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
01-05-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Straggler writes:
That made me laugh out loud! Surreal. Salvador Dali would be proud of us!
-
The question relates to whether or not those lobsters that do nothing more than fail to ever recognise the sacrifice made in their name, those that fail to be saved, are deserving of their eternal pot boiling fate?
Firstly. I was pointing out that a persons recognition of Christ as Saviour arises out of their having been saved. That such recognition is a consequence of and subsequent to having been saved. So, in reframing your query we must first state that folk who fail to recognise his sacrifice are those whose primary problem is that they weren't saved. That's why they didn't recognise Jesus as saviour.
Your question then becomes: "Is it fair that folk who fail to be saved perish eternally". Well, the answer to that depends upon the role they play in their not being saved. If it turns out that "failure to be saved" is the result of an wilful and persistant refusal to be brought to salvation then yes, of course a person can be said to deserve what they persistantly (effectively) willed for.
-
Do we not love our lobsters? Do we not recognise that, as mere lobsters, their capacity for recognising the significance of our sacrifice is somewhat limited? Do we not see that the expectation that our lobsters are even aware of the choice that confronts them is an expectation too far for the vast majority of lobster-kind?
I mean how aware do you think that the average lobster is?
Is it right that the default position, the catch all majority of those too ignorant or too unable to believe, should be an eternity of repeated and horrific pot boilings?
As was pointed out above, recognition of Christs sacrifice is not the deciding factor as to whether or not a person is saved. It would be unreasonable, in any case, to expect people to recognise something for which they either had no evidence or for which they were born too early/wrong location to have even heard of it! And God is nothing if not reasonable.
No, the deciding factor lies elsewhere and it is safe to say that everybody who has ever lived (leaving aside debate over fringe groups such as infants or the retarded) is/was equipped sufficiently for the task at hand. Everyone has a conscience (or a "knowledge of good and evil" if you prefer). It is their response to what their conscience communicates to them which ultimately informs God about their hearts desire. There are two main paths to be trodden in this respect. Either a person
- will struggle (with increasing desperation) with their wrong doing in the face of knowing what is right.
- or they will suppress and mute and drown out that which tells them they do wrong in order that they be freed from the discomfort associated with so doing.
Two possible trajectories to follow > Two hearts desires revealed in those trajectories followed > Two destinations made available to accomodate a persons hearts desire > With God and what God represents/Against God and what God represents: the same question posed to everyman as was posed to the first man
-
You could reasonably argue that one who chooses to knowingly take the "evil" path (lets assume for the sake of argument in a God given absolute form of morality) is deserving of ones fate.
The trouble is, that as the default position it appears to be, damnation is too all-encompassing. Given mans quite evident inability to adequately determine exactly what Gods moral absolutes are there will be many unwittingly conducting "evil". Then there are also those who object to faith and belief on grounds of reason. There are also the many who have a great deal of faith but faith that contradicts the faith that you say is required.
I appreciate the point, but it's not about whether or not a man does evil or not - for he is sure to knowingly do so time and again quite aside from any worldy/local restraint/encouragement which might influence the degree to which he does evil. Doing evil is as central to a mans nature as catching mice is to a cats - that is the clear Biblical statement on the matter, and one which arises out of Gods holiness being the standard of good and evil - not our relativistic, sin-excusing moral systems.
The issue is mans response to the desire for evil which his nature causes to well up in him. Globally speaking is he deep-down repulsed by it - even if rejoicing in the moment of fruit-tasting. Does he mourn over himself when his conscience reveals after-the-fact-truth which before-the-act-myth rendered cosmetically desirable and impossibly irresistable. Or does he jump in enthusiastically, burying the small voice which would seek to tell him that what he does is wrong both before and after the fact. And does he persist in suppression when the thrill of the current level of evil wears off (and it will wear off) so as to be able to sink down to the next level. Does he, instead of mourning over himself, excuse himself and justify himself to himself?
This is the heart of a man that God sees. And God is not looking so much at the evil done or the depths to which a person has sunk. Its "what's this mans heart response to the depraved position he finds himself in". Certainly all men will have suppressed their consciences and all men will have rejoiced in their evil and mourned their evil. But to what end is a persons trajectory leading them to? To an evermore silenced conscience - one that dismisses any real wrongdoing and says "I'm not such a bad chap". Or is it one which grips them evermore in the certainty that they, whatever outside appearences, are rotten to the core.
A mans very own sin is used as a tool to lead him to Christ - for sin can lead a man into the pit where even he recognises his depravity. The question is does he despair when he finds himself there. Or does he deaden his soul so as to extinguish the pain. Pain is a good thing - it's always designed to tell us there is something wrong. It's not a good idea to take action to take pain killers.
-
Imagine a Muslim so ardent in his faith that even if he were to be confronted with Christ as the son of God he would assume it to be a trick of the devil, so entrenched are his beliefs. What is his road to salvation?
His road is precisely the same as the above road - he has a conscience doesn't he, he does evil doesn't he?. A persons religion or lack of it doesn't hide their hearts response to God. Religion is not the realm in which these things are decided - the real realm flies under Religions radar.
Nor does their intellectual objection to faith prevent the game playing out. As already mentioned, religious faith is something that is given to a person after they have been saved - it's a marker of their salvation not a cause of it. So there is no role for an intellectual objection to faith prior to / at the point of salvation (indeed, the fact that intellectually brilliant people believe should cause you to question that objection)
Faith in the sense of belief-which-saves-a-person need not reference God at all. That is to say, the faith which saves is described as "believing what God says", to be convinced of what he is trying to convince you of. There is no need to attach the word God to this thing called conscience in order that you be convinced of what your conscience is attempting to bring you to conviction about. Believe it finally (and in the total sense aimed at your salvation) and you will have done precisely as Abraham did. You will have believed God. And he will save you.
All without having to first believe in Christ or first believe in Gods existance.
(It's not saving faith but it does illustrate the principle neatly: if you truly believe stealing is wrong (even though you yourself steal at times) then you believe God in this matter (even if you don't believe in God))
-
Faith as a means of establishing who is worthy and who is not of salvation is a truly terrible method. But I will come back to this more thoroughly in answer to your other post.
Hopefully the above reframes the faith we need to be dealing with. Salvation by believing God - not the religious conviction that follows your salvation. There is no need to bark up the same wrong tree which R. Dawkins spent so much time woofing up with The God Delusion
-
I think very very few men would ever choose to do that which they consider to be outright evil. Nobody, even those despised and hated for their actions by the overwhelming majority, ever actually consider themselves to be evil (except maybe for a very tiny handful of interesting psychological cases).
The choice you talk about is a false one. A "choice" weighted like a Mugabe style election where a no-vote counts as a vote in favour of damnation.
The Bibles position on a man doing evil, but not considering himself to be doing evil, utilises the phrase "suppression of truth". It is indeed possible for a man to consider himself as you say and this is how he achieves it - he suppresses that which would tell him he was doing evil / wrong / "inappropriate" / selfish / proud etc//
Like I say, it's not a matter of if a man does evil but what his reponse is to the evil he will surely and knowingly do (whatever term he choses to ascribe to it).
Moreover, I see no need that the conscience react to each and every evil a man does. A sample selection of his total evil, in which conscience was deployed and mans reaction to it noted (his suppression of it or living with the discomfort that lack of suppression brings) would suffice as indication of his hearts desire. Given Gods standard for what constitutes good and evil and given the nigh-on constant activity of our consciences, it's safe to suppose a decent body of evidence being built up this way or that.
Later Straggler - this pc of mine is about to crash!
-
What if the scenario used omits any material thing? What if the only offence committed involves a single betrayal of trust? Then who has to pay anything for the one whose trust has been broken to reinstate his trust and forgive?
The person whose trust is broken has an entitlement and the entitlement in our example would be my friends breaking off of the friendship altogether or his diminishing of the quality of the friendship downwards a notch (friendship being a trust based thing). He would be acting righteously (in both our economy and Gods -our economy referencing Gods eye-for-an-eye economy) were he to act so. He would/should have no guilt about acting so (assuming he took the right level of action) and I could have no complaint. Justice would have been done.
In forgiving me and maintaining our friendship and extending his trust as before, he is forfeiting his right to exact the righteous retribution due him. He is also forfeiting the right someone has to be wary around someone they have reason not to trust - when he leaves me behind with his next car (a BMW M3 I gather) he won't have any justification for entertaining a mistrusting thought. If forgiving me completely my "sin" need be as far from his recall as the east is from the west.
That love is his motivation for forgiving doesn't alter the forfeiting of these rights.
-
I still don't see why the forgiver need do anything other than choose to forgive if that is his want?
That is what my friend does, but whether patent to him or not, payment is what he is inevitably doing
-
Because an omnipotent being can decide what the cost is or even whether there need be any cost at all.
I'm not sure that's the case. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can confound logic for example. It doesn't mean he can lie. It doesn't mean either, that he can sustain an assault on his law without his law demanding due penalty. The level of penalty (logically) will always reflect the level of the offence. And I don't see how God can decide on the level of offence against him - it would be what it would be dependent upon what his holy nature is. God can't change his nature afterall.
-
It is still unclear why there need be a physical cost in the case of mans sins rather than just a re-instatement of trust/love/whatever anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean here but we experience betrayal of trust physically. Crying, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, tension etc.
I will address your other post regarding the nature of faith and the freewill or otherwise of Jesus later. I read your lobster line and just could not help myself but respond to that one first!!!
Note to self: fish makes good bait
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 17 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2009 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 9:05 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 64 (493134)
01-06-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Straggler
01-06-2009 7:21 AM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Straggler writes:
I am, from my vantage point of faithlessness, able to take a wider perspective regarding the suitability (or otherwise) of faith as a means of differentiating between the “worthy” and the “unworthy”. A perspective that you, immersed as you are in your own “one true faith”, seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge
I've a feeling that you've have missed the point that would deal with this. But let's see.
-
1. The Faithful: How many different religions place an equal emphasis on faith as a means of separating the worthy from the unworthy? How many of these faiths are contradictory and thus incompatible with each other? When a Muslim, for example, proclaims the splendour and glorious nature of his personal faith exactly as you have done above, is he lying? Is he deluded? For not accepting Jesus Christ as his personal saviour is he to be consigned to hell? From his perspective it is you who has fallen foul of deceit or delusion. From his perspective it is you who will never know the wondrousness associated with having discovered the “one true faith”.
We've already seen that faith in Jesus Christ or Faith in Allah or Faith in Buddhah etc. is not the basis by which person is deemed "worthy or unworthy" in Christianity. Rather, the criterion for salvation is "believing God" without a need to reference anything remotely Religious/God/Christ/Spirituality/Supernatural. One doesn't even need to believe in Gods existance in order to satisfy the criterion: "believe God".
Thus, Gods method of salvation transcends Religion - be it Faith in Allah Islam / Faith in Christ Christianity / Faith in God Judaism etc//. No faith (of that type) is required in order to be saved.
It's not for me to say how God manifests to someone who is saved - but who has never heard (nor ever will) of God-of-the-Bible or Jesus or Christianity. Suffice to say that that persons view of God might even appear pagan to my eyes - such is the level of information with which he has to build his model of God. A person isn't saved by the likeness with which they model Gods image - any more than they are saved by having the correct doctrine. Thankfully
So, what place this division between Religions/Philosophies when everyone can be saved by God irrespective of their country of birth, irrespective of the Religion of the land, irrespective of the philosphical leanings of their alma mater? What place, when these things form no impediment to God reaching man?
-
And how is one who is uncontaminated by cultural predisposition to choose between these different faiths? How is he to make the “correct” choice? By reason alone? Surely this contradicts the very nature of faith?
I can't speak for the spectrum of Religion but I know doctrinally and experientially that Christianity doesn't require that you chose for it. In my own case rational objection (not to say repulsion) to Christianity/God rose to it's greatest height very shortly before I was saved. It turned out to be an image of God I was objecting too - not God as he actually turned out to be.
The work of salvation is Gods alone. You might find yourself reasoning about it but there is no demand that you do so. You might find yourself engaging with Christians on a site like this - but there is no demand that you do. If you tumble into the boat flopping and wriggling you'll look back and see that it wasn't your reasoning or choice* that got you there. It was his fishing skills. You need do nothing at all.
-
By listening “to his heart”? Are you so arrogant as to claim that those of different and contradictory faiths to you own do not feel in their hearts, exactly as you presumably do, that they are blessed with having discovered the ultimate truth?
There is no method of differentiating between competing faiths and the very nature of faith makes any differentiation inherently impossible.
As indicated, I fully expect people who believe quite differently than I do to occupy heaven. I'm certainly not inclined to suppose God confined by the human tendency to ignore clear scriptural evidence pointing to Gods desire that all be saved - even though he accepts that many will (effectively) choose against* him
* note: that a person can't choose for God but can choose against him derives from the biblical indication that salvation is of Gods effort and damnation of mans will
-
2. The Deceitful: Consider those who would wish to intentionally manipulate or control the masses. What is their best strategy for achieving their aims? How about the promotion of irrationality, the abandonment of reason and the advancement of the notion that wrapping oneself in the warm embrace of unquestioning reverence for a “higher authority” is somehow a noble pursuit? The promotion of faith as a strategy for mass control is an obvious and well worn one.
Why would God choose a strategy for the communication of his message that is not only deeply inefficient but also incredibly and easily open to abuse by those who would deceive?
Go back to the garden of Eden and we see God setting up a choice. Prohibition on the one hand / provision of temptation on the other. For the sake of argument (and reason) assume the choice was assembled so as to be balanced.
Things are no different today. Lies of various types are utilised by God in order to ensure mankind have a route open which leads away from God. It can be the lie of all the works based religions. It can be the lie that material wealth and beauty will provide the contentment you yearn for. There is a lie available to suit all types and kinds of people.
(Do check out all those different Religions Straggler and you'll find they all share one thing in common. They all require that you work for your salvation. That you get your act together or go to church or worship or give alms or pray or follow rules or dress this way or meditate or...
One "Religion" doesn't require that you do a thing to be saved. Even if you believe God it will be because the evidence required to convict you was presented to you on a plate - by God. You don't have to lift a finger. One "Religion" in a million should blow at least some of the smoke away.)
-
The Faithless: Given all of the above are those who resist faith and insist on the application of reason necessarily choosing to reject God (as is often intimated by the EvC born again contingent)?
From personal experience I'd have to say no. As a mechanical engineer, pragmatic reasoning is an essential mode of operation - one which I happen to apply to most all areas of my life. Yet that tendency to reason and puzzle didn't stand in the way of my salvation - even though reason was being assaulted by the claims I was hearing about this God of the Bible. After the fact I find my reason reasons as before - but just according to a new landscape.
You don't arrive at God by reason. Nor do I think it possible to reason your way to a comfortable position away from him. Reason isn't equipped to provide final answers to that kind of question.
-
Is the insistence that a perfect God would not devise such an imperfect, inefficient and easily abused method of getting his favourite creation through the pearly gates of heaven really a denouncement of God himself?
The existance of false gods serves a purpose as we have seen. Perfection has to do with fitness for purpose. Not perceived fitness for perceived purpose.
-
If there is a God then he gave us our ability to reason. He also made reason a far more powerful and reliable method of differentiating between truth and falsehood than faith. Regardless of what the faithful of all the various faiths may say and regardless of what any particular holy book may claim the emphasis on faith over reason as the means to salvation is surely the work of one who wishes to divide mankind and lead him astray from “the one true path” (should such a thing exist).
Hopefully you will see that the faith you're talking of has nothing to do with saving faith I'm speaking of. They are different things altogether. This objection of yours might be raised on any Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist fora you frequent (although I'm think I'd be right in guessing you don't frequent such fora) but it has no more place here.

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 29 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 11:14 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 27 of 64 (493137)
01-06-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by DevilsAdvocate
01-06-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Did Jesus Have Freewill
Sounds like we are more omnipotent than God? Care to refute?
"More omnipotent" is an oxymoron?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-06-2009 9:32 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-06-2009 10:28 AM iano has not replied
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 11:27 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 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 2059 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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 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 2059 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 2059 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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 64 (493256)
01-07-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
01-07-2009 2:11 PM


Re: ..cont
iano writes:
Jesus on the cross was a God....
Buzz writes:
Mmmm, no. Jesus was/is the son of the supreme majesty/god Jehovah,
Hi Buzz..
quote:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I can't believe you don't believe Jesus is God so there must be some simple misunderstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2009 2:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 59 of 64 (493579)
01-09-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
01-08-2009 1:26 PM


Re: What do you want to do with this Straggler?
Sorry I didn't get to your post today Straggler. Will try over the weekend.
x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2009 1:26 PM Straggler 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