Question for Christians - #3

[elliotfc]

You didn't understand my post. I said god knew what all of those feel like because he created them.

So what? You're trying to look at this from God's perspective, whereas the Christian has his/her own perspective. Many Christians will find consolation in the fact that God experienced as a *person* suffering/death. Some won't. That's fine. If you find no consolation in the fact that God suffered/died as a human, you should not begrude others who do find what you do not find.

Anyhow salvation is not about "feeling". Feelings, while important, do not trump objective reality, nor do they trump the methodology God employs to deal with humanity. Yet feelings do have importance (i.e. Job, Jesus on the cross). And why shouldn't they matter? Sin and suffering are big deals.

If you assume that the Incarnation solely happened to placate human "feelings", your assumption does not correspond to Christian theology. Yet if it can correspond to human feeling, that is a nice touch.

Not Jesus as God, not God has to have another form to experience them, not God knows it through Jesus. There is absolutely no reason God wouldn't know what those sensations and feelings are like, because he is the creator of all things, including human emotions, therefore, he already knows. He wasn't completely ignorant before Jesus, he already knew!

Fair enough, I'm glad you have this understanding, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the salvific act is necessary for human redemption.

In addition, there's something to be said about EXPERIENCE over knowledge. I expererienced a fair amount of racial beligerence as a kid. I suppose anyone could theoretically understand what I went through...

Yet I went through it. And the theoretician didn't. And humans do, whether you admit it or not, place a premium on experience. God chose to design his salvific act in a particular way. So you don't care to respect the "experience" of God? Fair enough. That changes nothing. *Something* still had to be done to reconcile humanity with God.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If Jesus IS god, then it's redundant and unnecessary. God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings, he could not possibly know any more or any less, as he would know it completely.

But the Incarnation wasn't for God! You are completely missing the point! The Incarnation was for US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I agree with you, in that God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings! There you go! My follow up is......so what? What does that have to do with the necessity of the salvific act for fallen humanity?



-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I say that because it is the only way according to Christians. Supposedly, everyone is born already a sinner, and man cannot make up for his sinfullness through performing an act other than believing in Jesus. The only way to purify your soul is then to believe the killing of another human being (god/person, whatever) makes up for one's own wretchedness. In a word: gruesome.

No, the killing of Christ does not purify the soul!

Christians believe in the RESURRECTION of Christ!

The working analogy is that something must DIE on the way to purification. Yes, the person of Christ died, yet he didn't have to be killed. He could have died a natural death.

When the soul is, as you say, "purified", a part of the human self must die. It can be called pride, or something like pride. Something is sacrificed on the way to understanding and reconciliation. This is the Christian understanding.

As for gruesome...you are welcome to fixate on that word. And I hardly disagree with it. Jesus' crucifixion was gruesome. Sin is gruesome. We are in agreement. Of course I as a Christian believe that even the most gruesome thing can be transformed into the most beautiful thing; I'm not sure if you share my opinion.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

He gave his son, so that all who buy the story are made perfect and live forever.

Way to go, you've just demonstrated that you haven't actually read John 3:16. It says nothing about people being "made perfect". Nice one!

You wax condescending about people capitulating to objective truth. I can hardly have a bad attitude about that, I think it's the most liberating thing to do in the world.

Would believing be any different than that mental act?

Sure, but I don't confine belief to the brain and the temporal existence, or human life span. Since I believe in an eternal soul I think your question is inherently limiting.

Whether it was killing an animal or believing in Jesus, people have to earn their way into heaven.

People have to want it. If you want to call that desire to be commensurate with "earning it", I don't have a problem with that.

People still have to buy/trade/do something to be saved. Jesus existing didn't make that part of the transaction go away.

Fair enough. Jesus is not going to save a person who doesn't want to be saved. That makes sense to me.

-Elliot

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan

What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it was while on the cross. At that time the weight of the sins of everyone would have been pressing on Him who did not do anything wrong.

Consider what Psalm 22 said: (which I may add was written before crucifixion)

Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. 13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

Jesus who knew no sin bore everyones sin. Perhaps the utter hopelessness of the moment was alot to bear and Jesus felt alone. Technically God would not have left Him. We have no relative experience to know just how horrible it would have been.

Remember Jesus choose and could have changed it at any time but did not. He wanted the bridge built back up between God and man.

 

[Ossai]

Elliotfc

Argh! Yer question/request has been answered/fulfilled.

Genesis, John 3:16.

Entrapment and human sacrifice? I don’t think that quiet answers Diogenes’s question.

I disagree completely. Sacrificing oneself so that others may achieve eternal life with God is an example of love, and it is documented in the Bible.

Null point, there was no sacrifice.

Now, if you were to say something like "well, John 3:16 does say that God loved the world and did something about it, but I don't believe in the Bible, so that means nothing to me", then I really couldn't say much in reply.

Human sacrifice, not an act of love by any ‘normal’ definition. Then realize that there was no sacrifice and you starting looking at a typical protection racket.

Because John 3:16 is there, it says something, it means what it says, and it answers the question.

But you said the bible was symbolic. That whole bit is pure symbolism and none of it ever occurred. It’s just the Don not burning down your business because he can get more from you again later.

Would a world without suffering make you impressed by God's parenting skills? A world without death? A world where all is bliss? If so, that's fine. Then why don't you apply the Christian theology which you, I suspect, think you have a handle on? That world is not of this world. Your ideal world, the world where God would be such a loving Father, does not correspond to this world where we will all suffer and we will all die. So God, the parent, allows his children to have free will. The children run with it, and after their exile, will return the gift of free will, or, exercise it to its best possible application: the free choice of obedience to God. Only then will the children ALLOW God to be the wonderful parent that you desire.

So god is incapable of parenting and can’t create a heaven until everyone gives up there freewill.

God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system.

But humanity is not punishing itself, god is. It’s spelled out rather specifically a number of places in the bible. From god punishing babies for what the parent have done to creating a hell in order to punish.

Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice.

You’re declaring a universal morality, care to back it up?

When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.

Yet man is predestined and not the master of his fate – numerous verses in the bible.

Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act.

What act? Are we speaking of a play now?

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.

1. According to the bible, your freewill does not play a part in your salvation.
2. According to the bible, you are predestined to either heaven or hell.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.

1. There was no sacrifice.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans.

Except those that lived before the non-sacrifice, and the billions that have lived after never hearing of it.

What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?

The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation.

So the non-sacrifice was irrelevant. That pretty much negates the whole John 3:16 thing there. Hmmm, no love found yet.

I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that.

You’ve already declared that you don’t believe in the story of Adam and Eve, i.e. the source of original sin. Once that becomes imaginary, then where did the sin originate?

What does an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, CREATOR God need with 'experiencing firsthand'? It's like saying that I have to become 'Tron' to understand how my computer programs work...

God doesn't *need* to do it. Humans need something, and what we need has been given to us in a particular way.

Wouldn’t a memo, or even a nice post-it have been better?

You wake up each morning and next to you is a memo from god telling you some helpful hints about the coming day. Nice little reminders, god existing, some moral guidelines, no one having to be killed, no jealousy because everyone gets one.

Kitty Chan

Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it was while on the cross. At that time the weight of the sins of everyone would have been pressing on Him who did not do anything wrong.

Nice obfuscation, now how about answering the questions.
What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

 

[Mr Clingford]

Hello Ossai, Happy 2005.

I believe you asked me the same question that you asked Kitty on page 4 and I replied

One has to be careful exactly how one talks about Jesus because the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation are a little complex. Jesus and the Logos, the second part of the trinity, are not exactly the same. In a sense Jesus is God in material form

You wrote regarding the incarnation and the notion of it as reconciling the human and the divine

However, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for?

To bring together God and Humanity which had seperated itself from God.

You wrote

Considering I’m surrounded by fundies (I live in Nashville) then my general reaction is to assume most Christians are, sorry about that

Thanks for the apology. I have sympathy for you - I'm not sure how I would survive surrounded by fundamentalists!

Back to free will (noooo!) You wrote

If god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it.

But God goes knows this stuff outside of time; it makes as much sense to say that God knows everything after it happened as much as to say before.

 

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford

However, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for?

To bring together God and Humanity which had seperated itself from God.

How. Since you don’t believe in a literal bible, then how was humanity separated from god and why the need for a reconciliation at all?

If god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it.

But God goes knows this stuff outside of time; it makes as much sense to say that God knows everything after it happened as much as to say before.

That is just another level of obfuscation and merely seeks to avoid the repercussions of declaring god omnipotent.

It’s more like saying god know before, during and after. Since you can’t invalidate god’s knowledge it still leaves only an illusion of free will.

Ossai

 

[Beerina]

No creature under Gods creation will enter into eternity without making a concious decision to accept him as Lord, and keep his commandments, or to reject him, and live in rebelion.

I refuse to kneel to an omnipotent God who sits on his infinitely fat ass while children are raped and tortured to death. Is that clear enough for Yaweh? Yaweh thug. Bad. Evil.

 

[elliotfc]

How is this any different than saying ' might makes right ', or ' the end justifies the means '..

It isn't I guess, although I really wouldn't use those phrases myself because they bring up notions of comparative/relativistic human interactions which often result in atrocities.

You're just phrasing Christian doctrine in a particular way. Anthing that God does is right, or justifiable. I don't begrudge him that. If anyone would begrudge them that, they would use *ammunition* to back up their grudge, and in so doing, they would be applying their own personal moral standard to God, which to a Christian is, by definition, a contradiction, because God is not beholden to other moral standards *OUTSIDE* of the context of free will. If the individual cares to reject God's morality (as in my opinion you have done) the individual is allowed that personal freedom, which in isolation can in fact be viewed as a *triumph* over God.

How can you say you follow the teachings of Jesus and at the same time say " If God chooses to murder and mame, it's O.K. with me. "..?

First, I'm not sure if God does, in fact, murder and maim. I suspect that he doesn't actually.

Second, I don't know what murder would really mean to God. When a human commits a murder, he ends the temporal life that is in interaction with his/her own. When God (theoretically) commits murder, he would end a temporal existence that he created and the soul would still continue to exist. This would go for maiming as well.

Murder, defined, is one human killing another. So a tiger killing a human is not murder. You made an excellent point about Jesus...there is God, as a *human*, and he doesn't murder others. That's a pretty good clue about God right there. But God, when not in human form, is exempt from any notion of murder, which is inherently defined to be one human killing another human.

Second, I think that murder implies illegality? And nothing that God does can be unlawful.

I hope I'm right in assuming you don't think it's all right to murder children under any circumstances..

Yeah, basically. I think that performing abortions are sometimes morally (this would be *my* morality) allowable. BUt that wouldn't be unlawful I guess. Undue force? If I try to stop a kid from doing something really bad, like killing someone else, do I have the right to kill the kid? But that might not be murder either.

Basically I think that there are circumstances where kids can be killed by people. We define some of those circumstances to be lawful, and the rest are unlawful. Are we limiting your question to the current state of legality then, or to some overarching concept of objective morality?

Does it have anything to do with ' not being able to understand God ' ?

I think we can understand God to the best of our ability, and the process of understanding can be developed within the temporal existence, and that the truth that God can never be *completely* understood by humans does not mean that we can't understand God, just that we can't understand God completely, or perfectly.

I haven't yet declared that God kills, or maims people, by the way. I'm just allowing the possibilty for that reality (even though I currently doubt it). I allow the possibility for a hell of a lot, come to think of it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

I don't think I agree with you here, either. As Diogenes points out the character and teachings of Jesus rules out

Fair enough. Jesus certainly taught us, or, demonstrated, how we should interact with others.

What Jesus didn't teach us was how governments should act. Or how mothers and fathers should act. For example, Jesus didn't teach us that was is inherently immoral, and that people killed in wars are victims of murder. I can theorize (not very well by the way) that if God is handling humanity in *general*, in the context of some authoritative order similar to how the "state" would handle its citizens, he could kill humans. The analogy then would be distinct from the "murder" concept, which is a personal interaction deal (ie Jesus).

I could maybe develop this idea better, but I really don't feel like it. It's a workable theory, maybe, but only if it is understood in a limiting perspective.

I think that we extrapolate the message of Jesus a bit too much. I think there is a heck of a lot he doesn't tell us about everything. What Jesus did in his life really says nothing to me about political science and the military, for instance. I could apply Jesus to declare that biological warfare is immoral...but I could do that without Jesus. Is there ever a circumstance where biological warfare is permissible? Could we think of one? Maybe we could...but it's dangerous to get to into such kind of thinking.

Let's take the Flood. Put a gun to a head, and I'll say that I reject the way it is portrayed in Genesis. I don't think it happened that way, and the theology in it is *immature* (though sincere), in my opinion. But maybe it did happen. Maybe God did have to wipe out all of humanity. In that case he is dealing with humanity in general, in a position of ultimate authority as the creator. It isn't Jesus acting, but God, as the non-human creator of humanity. I can't say that God would be acting immoral in that situation, because he isn't acting as a human being. The obvious drawback of this scenario is that a authoritian power on earth could mimick God's example here and commit an act of nuclear holocaust or something in order to purify the earth. But that would be an act of pride and would be incredibly wrong of course. Just because God can/did do something that doesn't mean it can be done by a human.

I'm just leaving things open is all, I'm not in love with anything I'm saying here.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

One might say " .... even the most evil God imaginable has the capacity to do good.."


Or


" ... even the most righteous person imaginable has the capacity to do evil.. "

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective.. Doesn't it always ?

Yes.

As a Christian I kind of capitulate my perspective, or, I try to get it in the proper alignment. So when I offer my perspective, while it is still my own, it is righteousness (defined in Christian terms) that makes me think it carries weight. It is rooted in the Christian perspective, even though it is my particular perspective.

So you could say that the most evil God has the capacity to do good, but that wouldn't be a Christian perspective.

I've never tried to do anything other that offer a Christian perspective, and I've already admitted a circularity to it. I hardly expect any skeptic here to "see the light" because of what I, or anybody else here, is going to say. I'm mainly trying to debunk faulty notions regarding Christian theology.

And it comes back to free will, doesn't it? It all depends on one's perspecitve. This empowers the individual, who must then take the individual perspective and butt heads with all other perspectives in existence. That's what we're doing here, whipping out our perspectives and slapping them together.

My personal quest is to *align* my perspective with God's. How do you handle your perspective? What standard do you have in mind, or, do you not worry about anything else in respect to your personal perspective, and let it develop as it does with no contemplative thought guiding it?

A detached commentator could say that what I call God maybe essentially the same as anything that a skeptic has within him/herself to guide the way in which he/she would process the world and everything.

-Elliot

 

[Ossai]

Elliotfc

Second, I don't know what murder would really mean to God. When a human commits a murder, he ends the temporal life that is in interaction with his/her own. When God (theoretically) commits murder, he would end a temporal existence that he created and the soul would still continue to exist. This would go for maiming as well.

Again, you’ve just stated that might makes right.
Why do you not think that’s correct for people but ok for god? Since people are “made in god’s image”, wouldn’t acting as the creator acts be considered devout?

You're just phrasing Christian doctrine in a particular way. Anthing that God does is right, or justifiable. I don't begrudge him that. If anyone would begrudge them that, they would use *ammunition* to back up their grudge, and in so doing, they would be applying their own personal moral standard to God, which to a Christian is, by definition, a contradiction, because God is not beholden to other moral standards *OUTSIDE* of the context of free will.

So god doesn’t live up to our mere mortal standards. Or for that matter Christian standards supposedly set by god. What it really comes down to is god doesn’t live up to god’s standards, or to put it differently “do as I say and not as I do”.

If the individual cares to reject God's morality (as in my opinion you have done) the individual is allowed that personal freedom, which in isolation can in fact be viewed as a *triumph* over God.

Again since god apparently (according to the bible) rejects his own morality, wouldn’t it be devout to do the same?

I haven't yet declared that God kills, or maims people, by the way. I'm just allowing the possibilty for that reality (even though I currently doubt it). I allow the possibility for a hell of a lot, come to think of it.

So god may or may not murders, maims, tortures, etc; but that doesn’t really matter because if god does then it’s ok because it’s god.

As for the question of legality, you’re attempting the construction of a straw man.

In hypothetical land ‘Sad’ it’s not illegal to kill another human.
You journey there and kill another person. Did you commit murder?

Ossai

 

[elliotfc]

So, it is right except when it's wrong? ( The Pope also.. )

How does the Vatican feel about your definition of ' infallible ' ?

I'm guilty of stating the obvious! You are right, except when you are wrong!

As for how the Vatican feels...the mea culpas exist, can be counted, and can be read. The Vatican has claimed limited infallibility, which may be a contradiction in terms to you. Only God possesses unlimited infallibility. Do you really think that the Vatican has ever claimed to be God? I'll need to see the written evidence to believe that one...

And even if people say that the Bible is infallible, or perfect, they certainly don't live their lives that way, do they? They don't use the Bible to make pierogis, or sew buttons. That goes for the Vatican too. Has the Vatican ever explained how people should be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? Limited infallibility; I don't think it's too difficult of a notion...considering how obivous it is.

-Elliot

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Jesus Christ!

WHAT? Man Punishes himself?

Hi Lucifuge, I'm going to break your message up into pieces. I'm feeling like I'm saying the same thing over and over again in this thread so I'm going to try to wrap up my thoughts in the next several messages. I'll check back to see your replies, which I may or may not answer.

As a Christian, I believe in Free Will and in Absolute Justice. The Justice is constant, the Free Will is variable. Therefore, I place more responsibility with the chooser, who is contending with certainty. The chooser may place value judgments on the certainties that will result from the choice if it makes him/her feel better.

Regarding one of the value judgments, "punish", it is a mere way of speaking, isn't it? Let's say that Person X wants to reject God for an eternity. Is it a punishment to be allowed to reject God for an eternity? Person X may consider Hell (the absence of God) to be a reward. So, if you're hung up about the concept of "punish", understand that it is contingent on persepctive, and that one man's punishment is another man's reward.

That's strike one and please reread your holy book again, there is punishment and is not inflicted by humans.

Who does inflict punishment? God? Does God exist in Hell?

If you think that being sent to Hell is a punishment, in my belief system, God will not "send" anyone to Hell who does not want to go to Hell. And if you don't want to go to Hell, you'll know exactly what needs to be done in order to be reconciled with God. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. It's all on the table. If someone tells you to apologize to someone who you have harmed or be sent to a place where you are free from having to apologize to anyone, would you say the person is being punished if he refuses to apologize only to be sent to a place where he never has to apologize? I think I feel more empowerment, as a entity with Free Will, than you. I will choose whether or not I want to be reconciled with God, or completely divorced from God. Of course I can only do so with the salvific act...but that empowers me to make the choice. And I do/will.

Personally I think you're too hung-up on the punishment concept. But maybe that isn't a bad thing after all. If you think that punishment is so bad, surely you'll do what you need to do in order to not be eternally punished. But if you don't think punishment is a big deal, what I just said won't mean anything to you. What do you believe anyhow? Do you believe that God punishes people, or not? If you do, then don't worry, you have options. If you don't, then don't worry, it's not an issue.

Man lives his life, then dies and accordding to all I was taught he is judged according to some rules not made by man. And the ones that are found guilty, are punished. Where did jesus went after his dead?

A kind of limbo-ic holding cell where he could give the Gospel to those who came before. You've got it right. Man is judged according to God's standards. But as for being found guilty...WE'RE ALL GUILTY!!! ALL OF US!!! The guilty would be saved by God as long as the guilty want it.

About god need to punish man, it's debatable.

I think need, applied to God, places a value judgment on what God does, which is really beside the point to me.

God respects free will. If man wants to reject God for eternity, and God allows him to do that, would you call that punishment? If you say yes, then you have a problem with God respecting man's free will. Which would be a more fundamental issue we'd have to suss out.

The other option is that he enjoys it, or he wants to do it. After all, he is all powerfull, so if he wants he would simply send everybody to heaven.

But what if some people don't want to go to heaven? Are you allowing for that possibility?

And does God directly "punish" people in Hell, or does he enjoy the mere sentence, which I think would be an instantaneous decision?

If you haven't noticed, it's tough for me to think of anything you have said without seeing how it matches up with free will. What I can't do is isolate certain dogmatic points and examine them separate from the rest of it. My theology isn't as simplistic and fractured as you would have it be.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Jesus Christ!

But why then god would have had the need to send his son to die here to save man? from what punisment if there is no need to punish? You contradict yourself.

See, you're fixated on the negative, while my outlook is more proactive.

God didn't become human to rescue us from punishment. He didn't come for a negative, but for a positive. The positive is what you didn't identify (which isn't surprising I guess). He wanted the option of reconciliation. His divine salvific plan is about the best that we can become, not the worst that we can be.

As for "need for punish", once you take away the value judgment, absolute justice does insist (compel if you want) a certain sentence to match all choices. It is what it is. Speculating about needs is beside the point, to me.

[B}Where do you get that idea of correspondence?. What kind of human action deserves ETERNAL punishment? What do you mean by "absolute justice"? [/B]

I've already talked about punishment.

All decisions made freely deserve a response from God. That's absolute justice.

You are getting it wrong . I said that Man can't do nothing to avoid it and that it's true. god was the one wich sent his son do pay the punisment he set. But if he wouldn't ,then man couldn't have done anyting to get saved. Is that Ok? Could a man be saved by his own, without jesus sacrifice?

Man needs *something* to be saved. To the Christian that something is Jesus. I guess it could have been something else. Any act of God. No, it could not happen solely of man's own accord.

That's my bad english. I meant god don't want to see man punished.

Your English was fine, I just didn't want to get it wrong when a clarification would help me out. God wants every human to be reconciled to him, but he respects free will. Right now punishment is completely besides the point, at least in my way of thinking. It's like obsessing on a worst case scenario which can be AVOIDED while you're heading towards some goal or other.


-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Jesus Christ!

You are using too much words to say that you believe any act of god is perfect. But that's not logic: The perfect "salvific act" would have cleaned all sins, including rejection of god, wich is the ultimate sin. If it doesn't does it then is not perfect. That's strike two.

I've already answered this. You would have the salvific act nullify free will.

What do you mean be "cleaned all sins"? Do you mean that after Jesus' death, it wouldn't matter if I kill or rape another person? So much for absolute justice then.

It's like you can't comprehend more than one dogma working at once. Salvific act and the hell with everything else. Is that your idea of perfection? I believe in harmony.

Frankly your definition or conception of perfections isn't very compelling to me as a Christian. I'm content with what I'm given, and not what I would have something be. I am not God, and I don't decide the method by which I am saved. I respect the gift of free will and understand that even with Jesus, everyone that I do, for good or bad, still means something. The world did not end with the resurrection of Christ. What we do still matters.

You are avoiding the subject. Whats the need to punish man? Does man needs to punish himself? Or is god's need? Or nobody needs it?

You need to keep fixating on need, and I don't need that. You are obsessed with need/punish. Liberate yourself. Think outside your box. God gives his Son, and all you can think about is need/punish.

All of my sins are worth the death of jesus in the cross? I haven't done anything who deserves it to anyone I swear.

Are you saying that you have never sinned? If so, Christianity does not apply to you. It's just for sinners. If you've never sinned, you don't have to worry about whether or not you'll be saved.

If you have sinned, your sin and the sin of everybody else necessitates *something*. That something is God becoming man. Jesus did not have to be crucified. He could have died a natural death.

That's part of the guilt trip don't you think? Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?

It happened that he died on a cross. The bastards got him and tortured him and executed him. They made a movie about it last year. Do you feel guilty about Jesus being executed? Why? You didn't do it. You should feel guilty about sinning against God. No need to inflate your guilt outside of yourself. Now it just so happens that very many people do take your attitude, do feel guilt about Jesus on the cross, but those feelings send them in a very different direction than the one you're going in.

Have you ever felt guilty before for anything? Guilt is a healthy feeling. It teaches us that we are not the center of the universe. At the same time I understand that guilt shouldn't be blown out of proportion. For that places yourself back in the center of the universe. Guilt is good for what it is, and it shouldn't be transformed into an idol.

That's incredible! If his existence was all we need to be saved, then why he was crucified? Simple sadism? (That should be the answer)

That could be the answer. They were sick bastards, weren't they? They manifested some of the worst about humanity. I don't know the exact reason, but I do not find it surprising that men will destroy beauty. It happens all the time.

-Elliot

 

[kimiko]

No, the killing of Christ does not purify the soul!

Christians believe in the RESURRECTION of Christ!

The working analogy is that something must DIE on the way to purification. Yes, the person of Christ died, yet he didn't have to be killed. He could have died a natural death.

No. That might be what you believe, but that is far from Christian theology. Jesus had to be sacrificed. The sacrifice was the death/resurrection, not him being human. A natural death would not have fit the sacrifice requirement, although a natural death works in some other religions where the emphasis isn't on salvation. He was to be the ultimate sacrifice, a fulfillment in the manner of Jewish sacrifices. A deliberate spilling of blood was necessary. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and all of that.

Just because you find meaning in a figurative interpretation doesn't mean that eliminates the physical meaning and necessity. In a figurative interpretation, Jesus' soul being resurrected would have been enough. The whole crucifixion/physical resurrection thing would be irrelevant.

Edited to say: Actually, now that I think about it, Jesus himself could have been irrelevant as figurative interpretations would even accept a Messianic figure who was a shadow of a dream in the mind of God. As long as something makes up for us.

 

[kimiko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

Way to go, you've just demonstrated that you haven't actually read John 3:16. It says nothing about people being "made perfect". Nice one!

You wax condescending about people capitulating to objective truth. I can hardly have a bad attitude about that, I think it's the most liberating thing to do in the world.

Sure, but I don't confine belief to the brain and the temporal existence, or human life span. Since I believe in an eternal soul I think your question is inherently limiting.

Wow, you mean I didn't paraphrase to your approval? Who's being condescending?

The natural human condition is one of sin. Only through Jesus' sacrifice is the inherent human nature corrected/cleansed/whatever. Through the forgiveness accorded by the 'sacrifice' people are, yes, perfected. The passage says he loves us so much he gave his son so that people can be saved. Really, I've read the damn passage more than you know.

Perhaps you could detail the mechanism by which an eternal soul 'wants' salvation when they don't have a brain and neurotransmitters to do it with.

 

[kimiko]

If you assume that the Incarnation solely happened to placate human "feelings", your assumption does not correspond to Christian theology.

*Something* still had to be done to reconcile humanity with God.

I don't, my posts regarding feelings were in response to something Kitty Chan posted.

No, there didn't.