|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 19, 2014 14:28:02 GMT -5
The Lamb of God/Jesus had to die was foreordained before the world was created. Jesus had to pay the priced for our sins alone, because he was the Sacrificial Lamb of God.
I Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. Those around him at Crucifixion had to make their own choices... whether to believe in Jesus as the Lamb of God, who died for their sins or NOT.
Jesus KNEW Judas was going to betray Him, and he didn't reveal it to others. He had hoped Judas would repent like Peter did.... Peter repented and became one of the leading apostles.
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? Yes, it is difficult to understand, Snow.
Maybe if we try to think of it this way.
When people set out to understand their world there was a whole lot they didn't know.
They begin to construct an answer to their questions & really built upon their story throughout history. As their built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
Today, in an age of rationality, it is an has become unexplainable mass of beliefs that make no sense.
I think this is why I like the book "The Religion Virus."
The author shows, step by step, how it happened.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2014 9:46:45 GMT -5
The Lamb of God/Jesus had to die was foreordained before the world was created. Jesus had to pay the priced for our sins alone, because he was the Sacrificial Lamb of God.
I Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. Those around him at Crucifixion had to make their own choices... whether to believe in Jesus as the Lamb of God, who died for their sins or NOT.
Jesus KNEW Judas was going to betray Him, and he didn't reveal it to others. He had hoped Judas would repent like Peter did.... Peter repented and became one of the leading apostles.
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? I've been meaning to respond to this post, and a few others that you've made like it, for some days. It's been an interesting thing to think about. If I remember correctly from my English courses, your line of thinking on this is an act of deconstruction. That is, most narratives unravel themselves through internal inconsistencies, and that's exactly what this is. You'll never get a serious Christian to agree with you on this line of thinking, and you're opening yourself to successively longer and more involved explanations by pursuing this. The problem for many Christians is that they accept Biblical theology as inviolate and wholly consistent. But even scientists do not do this with the basic laws of nature. In science, we understand that human knowledge is always just a work in progress, and every theory has issues. And, in the study of literature, every book has issues, everything anyone says has issues, but unlike every other line of human knowledge, the Christian narrative has no internal issues whatsoever. It's God-given information, received through faith, and not subject to the kind of critique you are making. And I think that is wrong. We should think through these points and raise questions like this. But while I think your point is a good one to raise, I don't follow along to your conclusion concerning God, that is, that He could have dispensed with the entire Christian narrative. By the "entire Christian narrative", I mean: the Son coming to Earth as a man, dying on the Cross as a propitiation for our sins, then defeating Satan and sitting at God's right hand. All of which has very significant meaning for me. But I don't see this story as literal or physical truth, but metaphorical. There is a physical truth behind the story; it's not pure invention, but it's a story or narrative told to tell heavenly truth in terms that we can understand. Terms like the love of a Father (or mother) for a son, or the love of Christ as a bridegroom for the Church, His bride, are all true, but revealed to us through metaphors, because we can not see or know this truth in its full sense, as yet. The reason I don't agree with your complete line of analysis is that the facts argue otherwise. Judas did betray Jesus. Jesus did die on the Cross, and he said the things he said. So, God could not have done other than He did, because that is what happened historically. The unsolved mystery though is the exact nature of God. Essentially, why did he create this Earth, the Universe, and humankind? Why did He make it imperfect. Why did he create inferior beings that had 'free will' to love God or not love God? We don't fully understand these basic questions, so how can we fully understand the life of Jesus? At best we can have only a partial understanding, but still a significant and meaningful one. What I do get out of your analysis, and it's a good question, is that we can't be too definitive about the nature and character of God. God is omnipotent, but clearly there are limits to His power. He can't destroy Himself, for example. He cannot lie. Where I go with your analysis is a great skepticism about anything to do with pre-destination ... that Judas was locked in to a particular course of action. I think of it this way. Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, and then someone else would have. Jesus would have gone to the Cross some other way. At some point, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but this knowledge was based on understanding Judas the person, not based on the unseen hand of God pushing Judas. Judas acted in full free will, so that means he could have done otherwise. In increasing our understanding of God, we must always work backward from observable phenomena to general explanations. But going the other way, to say if God is omnipotent, then he would have or could have forgone the entire Christ narrative, indicates that our understanding of God's power is incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2014 10:04:34 GMT -5
Yes, it is difficult to understand, Snow.
Maybe if we try to think of it this way.
When people set out to understand their world there was a whole lot they didn't know.
They begin to construct an answer to their questions & really built upon their story throughout history. As their built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
Today, in an age of rationality, it is an has become unexplainable mass of beliefs that make no sense.
I think this is why I like the book "The Religion Virus."
The author shows, step by step, how it happened.
I agree, we have always tried to figure things out and give meaning to our world. However, this deck of beliefs reminds me of a house of cards that towards the end, it is to vulnerable and fragile it doesn't take much of a gust of air to have it all tumbling down. I think we are seeing that. I think because we are seeing that we are also seeing those who are clinging for dear life to these beliefs because they are so vulnerable to destruction right now. It's not necessarily an unexplainable mass of beliefs that make no sense, but I believe our common understanding of the Christian narrative is going through a major shift. I believe the core message is sound, but layers have been added through history, and thanks to Foucault, Said, Derrida and others, we are now unraveling some of those added layers. Our study group has been looking at how Christians sometimes hit a "wall", when events in their personal lives do not line up with what they have trusted and believed. Could be a divorce, illness, death in the family, bad church experience, or any number of other things. Suddenly, the God they thought they knew at a personal level does not speak to them anymore. The writer of the book we're studying (sorry, forget his name) indicated that 85% of evangelical Christians do not make it through the wall. (The writer is an evangelical). I have no idea how he got this stat, but the evangelicals in the room agreed. We are mostly all older folks, some of evangelical background, who by now have had "wall" experiences. In my view, this is what can happen to literal Christians at a personal level, somewhat of a reflection of what is happening to Bible literalism at a broad level within today's world.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 21, 2014 16:22:04 GMT -5
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? I've been meaning to respond to this post, and a few others that you've made like it, for some days. It's been an interesting thing to think about. If I remember correctly from my English courses, your line of thinking on this is an act of deconstruction. That is, most narratives unravel themselves through internal inconsistencies, and that's exactly what this is. You'll never get a serious Christian to agree with you on this line of thinking, and you're opening yourself to successively longer and more involved explanations by pursuing this. The problem for many Christians is that they accept Biblical theology as inviolate and wholly consistent. But even scientists do not do this with the basic laws of nature. In science, we understand that human knowledge is always just a work in progress, and every theory has issues. And, in the study of literature, every book has issues, everything anyone says has issues, but unlike every other line of human knowledge, the Christian narrative has no internal issues whatsoever. It's God-given information, received through faith, and not subject to the kind of critique you are making. And I think that is wrong. We should think through these points and raise questions like this. But while I think your point is a good one to raise, I don't follow along to your conclusion concerning God, that is, that He could have dispensed with the entire Christian narrative. By the "entire Christian narrative", I mean: the Son coming to Earth as a man, dying on the Cross as a propitiation for our sins, then defeating Satan and sitting at God's right hand. All of which has very significant meaning for me. But I don't see this story as literal or physical truth, but metaphorical. There is a physical truth behind the story; it's not pure invention, but it's a story or narrative told to tell heavenly truth in terms that we can understand. Terms like the love of a Father (or mother) for a son, or the love of Christ as a bridegroom for the Church, His bride, are all true, but revealed to us through metaphors, because we can not see or know this truth in its full sense, as yet. The reason I don't agree with your complete line of analysis is that the facts argue otherwise. Judas did betray Jesus. Jesus did die on the Cross, and he said the things he said. So, God could not have done other than He did, because that is what happened historically. The unsolved mystery though is the exact nature of God. Essentially, why did he create this Earth, the Universe, and humankind? Why did He make it imperfect. Why did he create inferior beings that had 'free will' to love God or not love God? We don't fully understand these basic questions, so how can we fully understand the life of Jesus? At best we can have only a partial understanding, but still a significant and meaningful one. What I do get out of your analysis, and it's a good question, is that we can't be too definitive about the nature and character of God. God is omnipotent, but clearly there are limits to His power. He can't destroy Himself, for example. He cannot lie. Where I go with your analysis is a great skepticism about anything to do with pre-destination ... that Judas was locked in to a particular course of action. I think of it this way. Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, and then someone else would have. Jesus would have gone to the Cross some other way. At some point, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but this knowledge was based on understanding Judas the person, not based on the unseen hand of God pushing Judas. Judas acted in full free will, so that means he could have done otherwise. In increasing our understanding of God, we must always work backward from observable phenomena to general explanations. But going the other way, to say if God is omnipotent, then he would have or could have forgone the entire Christ narrative, indicates that our understanding of God's power is incomplete. I beg to differ! There is NOT any proof what-so-ever that of there being any physical truth behind the story!"
We have NO proof that these things actually took place any more that we have proof that what happened in the Vedas actually did happen!
We have NO proof that Judas did betray Jesus or Jesus did died on the Cross, nor that Jesus said the things he said.
We have only the NT that at best was written 30 years after Jesus death and scant historical evidence written OUTSIDE the NT that it even happened!
It is as snow said, a house of cards with each card carefully balanced on one under it and as I said as people though out history built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
It is quite simple & NO mystery about it!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2014 19:42:36 GMT -5
I've been meaning to respond to this post, and a few others that you've made like it, for some days. It's been an interesting thing to think about. If I remember correctly from my English courses, your line of thinking on this is an act of deconstruction. That is, most narratives unravel themselves through internal inconsistencies, and that's exactly what this is. You'll never get a serious Christian to agree with you on this line of thinking, and you're opening yourself to successively longer and more involved explanations by pursuing this. The problem for many Christians is that they accept Biblical theology as inviolate and wholly consistent. But even scientists do not do this with the basic laws of nature. In science, we understand that human knowledge is always just a work in progress, and every theory has issues. And, in the study of literature, every book has issues, everything anyone says has issues, but unlike every other line of human knowledge, the Christian narrative has no internal issues whatsoever. It's God-given information, received through faith, and not subject to the kind of critique you are making. And I think that is wrong. We should think through these points and raise questions like this. But while I think your point is a good one to raise, I don't follow along to your conclusion concerning God, that is, that He could have dispensed with the entire Christian narrative. By the "entire Christian narrative", I mean: the Son coming to Earth as a man, dying on the Cross as a propitiation for our sins, then defeating Satan and sitting at God's right hand. All of which has very significant meaning for me. But I don't see this story as literal or physical truth, but metaphorical. There is a physical truth behind the story; it's not pure invention, but it's a story or narrative told to tell heavenly truth in terms that we can understand. Terms like the love of a Father (or mother) for a son, or the love of Christ as a bridegroom for the Church, His bride, are all true, but revealed to us through metaphors, because we can not see or know this truth in its full sense, as yet. The reason I don't agree with your complete line of analysis is that the facts argue otherwise. Judas did betray Jesus. Jesus did die on the Cross, and he said the things he said. So, God could not have done other than He did, because that is what happened historically. The unsolved mystery though is the exact nature of God. Essentially, why did he create this Earth, the Universe, and humankind? Why did He make it imperfect. Why did he create inferior beings that had 'free will' to love God or not love God? We don't fully understand these basic questions, so how can we fully understand the life of Jesus? At best we can have only a partial understanding, but still a significant and meaningful one. What I do get out of your analysis, and it's a good question, is that we can't be too definitive about the nature and character of God. God is omnipotent, but clearly there are limits to His power. He can't destroy Himself, for example. He cannot lie. Where I go with your analysis is a great skepticism about anything to do with pre-destination ... that Judas was locked in to a particular course of action. I think of it this way. Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, and then someone else would have. Jesus would have gone to the Cross some other way. At some point, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but this knowledge was based on understanding Judas the person, not based on the unseen hand of God pushing Judas. Judas acted in full free will, so that means he could have done otherwise. In increasing our understanding of God, we must always work backward from observable phenomena to general explanations. But going the other way, to say if God is omnipotent, then he would have or could have forgone the entire Christ narrative, indicates that our understanding of God's power is incomplete. I beg to differ! There is NOT any proof what-so-ever that of there being any physical truth behind the story!"
We have NO proof that these things actually took place any more that we have proof that what happened in the Vedas actually did happen!
We have NO proof that Judas did betray Jesus or Jesus did died on the Cross, nor that Jesus said the things he said.
We have only the NT that at best was written 30 years after Jesus death and scant historical evidence written OUTSIDE the NT that it even happened!
It is as snow said, a house of cards with each card carefully balanced on one under it and as I said as people though out history built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
It is quite simple & NO mystery about it!
I believe the New Testament is a genuine account of the life and times of Jesus and later Paul, as well as the apostles and disciples. I don't believe every word literally, and I'm with the theologians that analyse the NT in light of Jewish culture and the common thought of the time. I also don't think that the gospels are first person accounts. But those caveats aside, the Scripture itself is proof enough for me, and if there were other solid accounts, well, they too would be Scripture. That's why there's nothing outside of Scripture, of course. There are four independent accounts of the life of Jesus, written over a period of 50 years; what more do you want? And the unprecedented growth and spread of the Gospel message through the Roman Empire also cannot be denied. That's a historical fact. Why did it happen; because ordinary people were starving for the Gospel message. Too bad the authoritarians often twisted it to their own ends, but the Gospel has endured. But like you I don't accept Scripture entirely on literal terms; the Creation story, Noah and the Flood, and so on, are oral legends with a grounding in fact, but I don't take Scripture literally on these things. But I don't need to! I don't believe the Bible solves every problem and social issue, but the basic message is a firm foundation. Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Don't expect the world to support you on the things that really count. It'll all be worth it in the end, social justice and truth are their own reward, but in the after-life there will be no more tears and suffering; justice is in the hands of God. Some house of cards that is!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 21, 2014 23:33:38 GMT -5
You are on a roll, WH. Enjoyed reading these posts!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 22, 2014 1:05:45 GMT -5
I beg to differ! There is NOT any proof what-so-ever that of there being any physical truth behind the story!"
We have NO proof that these things actually took place any more that we have proof that what happened in the Vedas actually did happen!
We have NO proof that Judas did betray Jesus or Jesus did died on the Cross, nor that Jesus said the things he said.
We have only the NT that at best was written 30 years after Jesus death and scant historical evidence written OUTSIDE the NT that it even happened!
It is as snow said, a house of cards with each card carefully balanced on one under it and as I said as people though out history built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
It is quite simple & NO mystery about it!
I believe the New Testament is a genuine account of the life and times of Jesus and later Paul, as well as the apostles and disciples. I don't believe every word literally, and I'm with the theologians that analyse the NT in light of Jewish culture and the common thought of the time. I also don't think that the gospels are first person accounts. But those caveats aside, the Scripture itself is proof enough for me, and if there were other solid accounts, well, they too would be Scripture. That's why there's nothing outside of Scripture, of course. There are four independent accounts of the life of Jesus, written over a period of 50 years; what more do you want?And the unprecedented growth and spread of the Gospel message through the Roman Empire also cannot be denied. That's a historical fact. Why did it happen; because ordinary people were starving for the Gospel message. Too bad the authoritarians often twisted it to their own ends, but the Gospel has endured. But like you I don't accept Scripture entirely on literal terms; the Creation story, Noah and the Flood, and so on, are oral legends with a grounding in fact, but I don't take Scripture literally on these things. But I don't need to! I don't believe the Bible solves every problem and social issue, but the basic message is a firm foundation. Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Don't expect the world to support you on the things that really count. It'll all be worth it in the end, social justice and truth are their own reward, but in the after-life there will be no more tears and suffering; justice is in the hands of God. Some house of cards that is! The point is they are not 'four independent accounts of the life of Jesus.' The synoptic gospels Mathew, Mark, and Luke:
from wiki "have strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence.[2] The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship — the "synoptic problem" — has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time".[3] The longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q "We learned in World Civilization class that there several reasons that Christianity took hold of Western culture as it did. I can't remember them all but a couple of them impressed me as being logical.
#1) Having to placate one God instead of the multitudes of Gods was a lot easier. #2) People were drawn to the "personal" God .
You mentioned in one of your posts, quoting part of one of your posts you said your Bible study group had been looking at "Christians sometimes hit a "wall", when events in their personal lives do not line up with what they have trusted and believed. Could be a divorce, illness, death in the family, bad church experience, or any number of other things. Suddenly, the God they thought they knew at a personal level does not speak to them anymore. "
So a personal God sometimes has it's downfalls.
I hardly think that it was people starving for the gospel as much as the Roman Emperor Constantine's assistance. When Christianity became allied with government no one had a choice in the matter. Christianity was spread with sword.
You became a Christian or you died.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 2:07:31 GMT -5
I beg to differ! There is NOT any proof what-so-ever that of there being any physical truth behind the story!"
We have NO proof that these things actually took place any more that we have proof that what happened in the Vedas actually did happen!
We have NO proof that Judas did betray Jesus or Jesus did died on the Cross, nor that Jesus said the things he said.
We have only the NT that at best was written 30 years after Jesus death and scant historical evidence written OUTSIDE the NT that it even happened!
It is as snow said, a house of cards with each card carefully balanced on one under it and as I said as people though out history built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story.
It is quite simple & NO mystery about it!
There are many on this Board who have quite a different view.Your statement "people throughout history built the story one part had to rest upon the previous part in order for it to hold together and to justify any previous part of the story..." is interesting and very general. The New Testament and four independent accounts of Jesus life, times, death, resurrection are quite at odds with your statement and certainly don't read like a house of cards about to collapse. They read as a genuine account of the life and times of Jesus and the apostles and early Christians. It is a remarkable point in history which has subsequently shaped our world and existence. The spread of the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire is completely factual. Of course, today's so called rational thinker will point to gaps or minor inconsistencies in the narrative and attempt to turn the whole account on its head. But it was never intended to be an historical documentary - simply a narrative about Jesus, his teaching and the impact that he had. Some people may dismiss it as a myth because they don't accept it as factual or based on evidence...that's their choice. But there are many who don't dismiss it because they believe the facts/evidence and believe what Jesus said. They believe that God created the universe and all things in it. They believe that this same God has made himself known to humanity in the person of Jesus who offers hope to everyone beyond this life. It is clear that Jesus offered people complete hope for an eternal future when he was on earth.....just as He still does today. Nothing has changed in that department. Views (beliefs, opinions) are one thing.
Facts are quite another. The four gospels are NOT independent accounts of Jesus life, times, etc.
You only believe so because you apparently haven't read anything about how & when they were written.
It is fine if you want to believe something. However, facts don't change. If you took even one of the cards out of what some beliefs are built on, the whole pile comes tumbling down.
Try it. Just honestly review all the cards in your belief system. Then try taking out just one card very carefully.
Take that first card you believe. "God created the universe and all things in it."
Then try to fit into that which manuscript of that concept you believe is accurate, -the Old Testament or the Vedas? Then answer the question, why that one?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 23:04:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT -5
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? Hi Snow, Some really good questions. Why can't God just forgive? Why all the drama? Couple of questions for you to ponder. I want you to imagine a mother whose children have been murdered. I want you to consider looking her in the eye and saying "Why can't you just forgive? Why all the drama about wanting justice?" Would you feel comfortable doing this? Why or why not? Imagine that this murderer is now before the judge in the trial for these murders. But the mother says to the judge "Listen, I've now come to a point of forgiveness. Please dismiss the trial the let him go." The judge says "Sure, if you've forgiven him, why not?" Would you be happy with this scenario? Why or why not? Let's imagine that the murderer now turns to the mother and says "About time! See, killing your kids was no big deal. Why all the drama? Why couldn't you forgive me sooner?" How would you feel about this scenario? One more - The judge says he will happily dismiss the trial on two conditions: 1), that the the mother forgives the murderer; and 2) that the murderer says he is sorry. Would you be happy with this scenario?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 23:34:42 GMT -5
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? Hi Snow, Some really good questions. Why can't God just forgive? Why all the drama? Couple of questions for you to ponder. I want you to imagine a mother whose children have been murdered. I want you to consider looking her in the eye and saying "Why can't you just forgive? Why all the drama about wanting justice?" Would you feel comfortable doing this? Why or why not? Imagine that this murderer is now before the judge in the trial for these murders. But the mother says to the judge "Listen, I've now come to a point of forgiveness. Please dismiss the trial the let him go." The judge says "Sure, if you've forgiven him, why not?" Would you be happy with this scenario? Why or why not? Let's imagine that the murderer now turns to the mother and says "About time! See, killing your kids was no big deal. Why all the drama? Why couldn't you forgive me sooner?" How would you feel about this scenario? One more - The judge says he will happily dismiss the trial on two conditions: 1), that the the mother forgives the murderer; and 2) that the murderer says he is sorry. Would you be happy with this scenario? I think that is an extreme over simplification in answer to a serious quest by snow.
There are people who know that the same kinds of narrative as the Christian justification for a god sacrificing his son is repeated many times in the mythology of human history.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 23:44:56 GMT -5
Hi Snow, Some really good questions. Why can't God just forgive? Why all the drama? Couple of questions for you to ponder. I want you to imagine a mother whose children have been murdered. I want you to consider looking her in the eye and saying "Why can't you just forgive? Why all the drama about wanting justice?" Would you feel comfortable doing this? Why or why not? Imagine that this murderer is now before the judge in the trial for these murders. But the mother says to the judge "Listen, I've now come to a point of forgiveness. Please dismiss the trial the let him go." The judge says "Sure, if you've forgiven him, why not?" Would you be happy with this scenario? Why or why not? Let's imagine that the murderer now turns to the mother and says "About time! See, killing your kids was no big deal. Why all the drama? Why couldn't you forgive me sooner?" How would you feel about this scenario? One more - The judge says he will happily dismiss the trial on two conditions: 1), that the the mother forgives the murderer; and 2) that the murderer says he is sorry. Would you be happy with this scenario? I think that is an extreme over simplification in answer to a serious quest by snow.
There are people who know that the same kinds of narrative as the Christian justification for a god sacrificing his son is repeated many times in the mythology of human history.
I am taking Snow's quest very seriously. These questions relate to transgression, punishment, repentance, forgiveness, justice. Is it ok to have forgiveness without justice? Without penalty? Without repentance? Would we be happy with any of the above scenarios in our civil justice system?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 23:54:35 GMT -5
I have examined it many times over the years and read/studied many viewpoints. I have looked at the evidence concerning Jesus in detail. Based on the evidence I am very comfortable in believing that Jesus lived, died on the cross and rose from the tomb.
That is the key card in my belief system. Clearly, there were many people of that day who believed it also and despite hostile opposition, the Gospel took hold. It changed people's lives for the better - in some cases from being people who murdered the early Christians to those who preached Christ's message of salvation. I have to say simply that the more I read the more I believe in Jesus. My belief that God created the universe and all things in it stems from my belief in, and acceptance of, Jesus as Emmanuel or "God with us". The Bible makes perfect sense to me. I appreciate that it doesn't to others and accept they have a different viewpoint. We were talking about it in our Bible study last night -3 guys who grew up in non-Christian (combo of atheist/agnostic) homes spoke of their review of the evidence around Jesus and their subsequent acceptance of His message. They spoke of the positive change that it had made to their lives.
Yet those who profess a faith in God are often characterised by those who don't as as ignorant, arrogant, egocentric and unintelligent.
Intelligence and faith are not mutually exclusive.
I'm a person who grew up in Christian home. When I reviewed the evidence around Jesus, I saw the religious myths created by mankind though out history had similar beliefs.
It made a very positive change in my life.
Of course there were people of that day who believed in supernatural happenings. Often the beliefs were not even Christian but other religious beliefs.
Many gods & many narratives. (Has anyone anyone here called you "ignorant, arrogant, egocentric and unintelligent?")
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 27, 2014 0:41:47 GMT -5
No, I don't think anyone here has called me these things. But if I look back over the past year since I began posting there is definitely a stronger inference coming through that the person who believes in Christ does so because they don't read widely enough (ie ignorant) or that they don't have the horsepower upstairs to analyse the facts closely enough (ie lacking intelligence). This kind of language has become more strident in recent months. There's a local atheist writer in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) who regularly characterises Christians as ignorant, arrogant, egocentric and unintelligent and mocks the average Christian. It's interesting to see the comments that follow - there are some atheists who completely object to his stance as unreasonable whilst others applaud from the rooftops. So, I've cancelled my subscription to avoid his rants! Oh, my! Why did you cancelled your subscription?
I imagine he was posting letters to the editor.
You could sent letters to the editor yourself defending your faith!
In fact, as a Christian shouldn't you have been witnessing for Christ?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 27, 2014 9:02:53 GMT -5
There's a local atheist writer in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) who regularly characterises Christians as ignorant, arrogant, egocentric and unintelligent and mocks the average Christian. Would you prefer "immoral, degenerate, god-hating, baby-eating spawn of Satan"?! ...Christians do their share of name calling. IMO, none of it is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 16:24:00 GMT -5
Sigh, I guess I'm just never going to understand this. I still don't understand why Jesus, if he was God, had to die in the first place. Being God an all, why didn't he just forgive everyone and be done with it. Why all the drama? Also, if Judas returned the money and killed himself because he felt so bad about it, wouldn't you say he repented? Hi Snow, Some really good questions. Why can't God just forgive? Why all the drama? Couple of questions for you to ponder. I want you to imagine a mother whose children have been murdered. I want you to consider looking her in the eye and saying "Why can't you just forgive? Why all the drama about wanting justice?" Would you feel comfortable doing this? Why or why not? Imagine that this murderer is now before the judge in the trial for these murders. But the mother says to the judge "Listen, I've now come to a point of forgiveness. Please dismiss the trial the let him go." The judge says "Sure, if you've forgiven him, why not?" Would you be happy with this scenario? Why or why not? Let's imagine that the murderer now turns to the mother and says "About time! See, killing your kids was no big deal. Why all the drama? Why couldn't you forgive me sooner?" How would you feel about this scenario? One more - The judge says he will happily dismiss the trial on two conditions: 1), that the the mother forgives the murderer; and 2) that the murderer says he is sorry. Would you be happy with this scenario? Somehow I am missing the parallels here. In the very first question, I'm supposed to consider asking the mother to forgive, and I presume, that is like asking God to forgive? Who murdered God's children, though? Not quite getting this.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 18:47:18 GMT -5
Hi Snow, Some really good questions. Why can't God just forgive? Why all the drama? Couple of questions for you to ponder. I want you to imagine a mother whose children have been murdered. I want you to consider looking her in the eye and saying "Why can't you just forgive? Why all the drama about wanting justice?" Would you feel comfortable doing this? Why or why not? Imagine that this murderer is now before the judge in the trial for these murders. But the mother says to the judge "Listen, I've now come to a point of forgiveness. Please dismiss the trial the let him go." The judge says "Sure, if you've forgiven him, why not?" Would you be happy with this scenario? Why or why not? Let's imagine that the murderer now turns to the mother and says "About time! See, killing your kids was no big deal. Why all the drama? Why couldn't you forgive me sooner?" How would you feel about this scenario? One more - The judge says he will happily dismiss the trial on two conditions: 1), that the the mother forgives the murderer; and 2) that the murderer says he is sorry. Would you be happy with this scenario? Somehow I am missing the parallels here. In the very first question, I'm supposed to consider asking the mother to forgive, and I presume, that is like asking God to forgive? Who murdered God's children, though? Not quite getting this. It is not supposed to be a direct parallel; it is to explore issues of justice versus mercy at this point, and our expectations. Can someone be absolved of a serious crime simply by forgiveness? Or would their repentance be enough to let them escape without penalty? We often want God to "just forgive", but we don't hold that standard ourselves. We expect justice. Regardless of repentance, regardless of forgiveness, we still expect that a serious transgression must be met with a serious penalty. Except when we sin - we want mercy for ourselves, but justice against everyone else. Why do we expect so much less of God, who is completely righteous, and completely just? He cannot let sin go unpunished. No righteous judge could. And yet he desires to forgive and show mercy. How does he completely forgive us all our transgressions, and yet also remain completely just, giving sin the punishment it deserves?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 21:32:26 GMT -5
Somehow I am missing the parallels here. In the very first question, I'm supposed to consider asking the mother to forgive, and I presume, that is like asking God to forgive? Who murdered God's children, though? Not quite getting this. It is not supposed to be a direct parallel; it is to explore issues of justice versus mercy at this point, and our expectations. Can someone be absolved of a serious crime simply by forgiveness? Or would their repentance be enough to let them escape without penalty? We often want God to "just forgive", but we don't hold that standard ourselves. We expect justice. Regardless of repentance, regardless of forgiveness, we still expect that a serious transgression must be met with a serious penalty. Except when we sin - we want mercy for ourselves, but justice against everyone else. Why do we expect so much less of God, who is completely righteous, and completely just? He cannot let sin go unpunished. No righteous judge could. And yet he desires to forgive and show mercy. How does he completely forgive us all our transgressions, and yet also remain completely just, giving sin the punishment it deserves? First, I don't think 'snow' was asking God to forgive every misdeed and wrongdoing. She's not a Christian, so she's not going to ask God for anything like that. You've missed her point, I believe. She was pointing out a logical inconsistency, that is, if God, as understood by orthodox Christians, was going to forgive, why couldn't He do that without having to sacrifice his own Son. He is God, after all, so why did He go to all that fuss. And, I better quickly add, that I do not hold that point of view myself, but I've covered that off in a couple of posts above. But to move past that, even though I don't quite see how the story of the mother, et cetera, relates, the issue you raise is a thought provoking one. It struck me after reading it that God is pained by our sins. From my own reading of Scripture, God does not desire to punish; it's just that he cannot take sin or a state of sin into heaven, and keep heaven pure. That's the reality. So, we will all go through a kind of purgatory after we die, in order to cleanse us from the stain of sin; the Bible is clear on this. Let's hope that there's something left after that happens. That's why Jesus was sent to Earth, to show us that living for righteousness has its own reward, and also a reward in Eternity. How far will we go for righteousness sake? Jesus went all the way to the Cross; it's possible to be righteous and get nothing material out of this life. It's possible to sacrifice everything for righteousness sake. That was the purpose of Jesus life, but most of us are not capable of giving that much. I've recently been watching a Japanese movie called "The Human Condition" which shows how much can be given, and is given under trying circumstances. I look up to people like the hero of that movie, a conscientious objector when Japan became a military state, people who exemplify the life of Jesus in our present time.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 22:54:35 GMT -5
Hi What Hat,
I know Snow is not a Christian, she just seemed to be asking genuine questions to try to understand the christian view point better. Her very genuine question was: Why can't God just forgive? It is an excellent question. I don't think I missed her point. I very much note the seeming inconsistency she was pointing out.
I'm sorry my analogies didn't assist you. They were intended to be mostly thought provoking in considering how God can satisfy both the requirements of justice and mercy together. None of the scenarios from my analogy satisfy both justice and mercy. Repentance doesn't wipe out sin. Neither does forgiveness. Justice is still needed. This makes us think - what is the answer?
I like your statement - "God is pained by our sins". Yes. Is our repentance for these sins enough? Is it enough for God to say "I forgive you because you repent?" Snow asks the genuine question - well, why not?
Your answer appears to be- If we work towards righteousness, in the same way Jesus was righteous, it might be enough, including if we go through a kind of purgatory if we die (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here).
My understanding is: We will never be righteous enough (Romans 3:10-12). Our repentance is not enough.
So, Jesus lived a completely righteous life in order to credit his righteousness to us who believe in him (Romans 3:21-26). He died on the cross in order to pay the penalty for sin that we deserve. Justice is met - Jesus meets the debt, pays the price. But he also makes us righteous. Mercy is available - God freely credits righteousness to those who believe. Romans 5:9-10 says "Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
In effect, this says Jesus paid the penalty to wipe out our unrighteousness. This brings us back to a fairly neutral standing. But now, having our sin wiped out, we are also credited righteousness - the righteous life that Christ lived.
To put it another way, we have a bank balance badly in debt (sin). Jesus has one massively in credit (righteousness). He not only pays our debt, he tops up our balance far into credit. Obviously nothing is free. He wears the cost for this. And the price is enormous - the punishment of sin at the cross, on our behalf.
This is the true biblical Christian message. God grants undeserved mercy to the undeserving and the sinful while maintaining justice.
|
|
|
Post by Skeptic Al on Aug 28, 2014 2:15:49 GMT -5
Ah yes, and this is where it always starts to slowly unravel, this whole GTF, GTS, GTHS thing...
The Gospel in Four Paragraphs
The Hopeful Beginning: GOD (the Father, presumably. I mean c'mon He's THE FATHER, duh!) creates man in His own image. Hooray for humans! Life is groovy, the Earth rocks, and everything is sunshine and roses.
The Messy Middle: GOD the Father (or the entire Trinity, I'm not sure; it's a little fuzzy at this point) gets ANGRY at His created beings because of their penchant for disobedience and general nastiness. The level of his anger comes as a bit of a surprise considering He made these beings in His image and He is, after all, omniscient and omnipresent. (Which begs the question: If you KNEW something you were creating was going to go rogue on you -- in fact, if that was a built-in design feature -- how/why would you get angry when said roguishness occurred?? Isn't this what we call "blame shifting"...?) It got ugly fast, and GOD became eye-popping mad at his humans for behaving like ... humans. Before long He wanted to launch everyone's sorry butt into a lake of eternal fire!! (And you thought your 3rd grade teacher was mean!) Yes, that's how much He (GTF, GTS, GTHS) DESPISED us humans!!
The Part That Gets a Little Weird: So, GOD the Father in divine consultation with God the Son (God the Holy Spirit was keeping the minutes, no doubt) decides the only way to mitigate the aforementioned "rogue creation disaster" is to have Himself killed! (Which begs the next 2 questions: 1) How do you kill an eternal being -- Kryponite Plus? 2) What is it about killing things that always seems to appease the gods?) And get this, because it's the most important point of all: He had Himself killed not to save us from that ne'er-do-well, the Devil (aka Lucifer, aka Satan, aka the Serpent, aka Barack Obama), as your Sunday school teacher might have taught you, but to save us from ... Himself!! That's right, boys and girls, it turns out that this here's a really complicated relationship. You see, on one hand (or maybe that's three hands?) GOD (GTF, GTS, GTHS) despises us, but on the other hand (or the other 3 hands?) He (GTF, GTS, GTHS) is also madly in love with us!!! ~Birds singing, little hearts floating up in the sky, soft wind in your hair (tightly bound on top of your head, of course, if you're a woman)~ In other words, GOD had himself killed (as mentioned above) in a most humiliating and painful way so that he wouldn't have to hate us anymore! Wow, how's that for a plot twist?!
The Summation and the Happy Ending: So, in summary, GOD made people. People were not nice. GOD was so angry at people He was ready to torture them in hideous ways that would have made even Pol Pot cringe. But then, in an amazing change of heart, God had Himself brutally murdered so that He wouldn't be angry anymore. Yay, everything is groovy again! Best of all, one fine, polygamous day we're all going to get married to Him (to God the Son, that is; God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are remaining eternal bachelors, apparently) and we're going to live happily ever after in mansions of gold!
-- The End
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 28, 2014 10:38:53 GMT -5
Hi What Hat, I know Snow is not a Christian, she just seemed to be asking genuine questions to try to understand the christian view point better. Her very genuine question was: Why can't God just forgive? It is an excellent question. I don't think I missed her point. I very much note the seeming inconsistency she was pointing out. I'm sorry my analogies didn't assist you. They were intended to be mostly thought provoking in considering how God can satisfy both the requirements of justice and mercy together. None of the scenarios from my analogy satisfy both justice and mercy. Repentance doesn't wipe out sin. Neither does forgiveness. Justice is still needed. This makes us think - what is the answer? I like your statement - "God is pained by our sins". Yes. Is our repentance for these sins enough? Is it enough for God to say "I forgive you because you repent?" Snow asks the genuine question - well, why not? Your answer appears to be- If we work towards righteousness, in the same way Jesus was righteous, it might be enough, including if we go through a kind of purgatory if we die (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here). My understanding is: We will never be righteous enough (Romans 3:10-12). Our repentance is not enough. So, Jesus lived a completely righteous life in order to credit his righteousness to us who believe in him (Romans 3:21-26). He died on the cross in order to pay the penalty for sin that we deserve. Justice is met - Jesus meets the debt, pays the price. But he also makes us righteous. Mercy is available - God freely credits righteousness to those who believe. Romans 5:9-10 says "Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. In effect, this says Jesus paid the penalty to wipe out our unrighteousness. This brings us back to a fairly neutral standing. But now, having our sin wiped out, we are also credited righteousness - the righteous life that Christ lived. To put it another way, we have a bank balance badly in debt (sin). Jesus has one massively in credit (righteousness). He not only pays our debt, he tops up our balance far into credit. Obviously nothing is free. He wears the cost for this. And the price is enormous - the punishment of sin at the cross, on our behalf. This is the true biblical Christian message. God grants undeserved mercy to the undeserving and the sinful while maintaining justice. While I believe all that is true, I don't limit God's mercy, in my own mind, just to those who believe. I believe that the sacrifice was given for all mankind regardless of whether we believe or not. But I don't expect you to agree with that; just laying out my own bias at the outset. You might have had a better sense of what snow was getting at than I did, after all. An interesting conversation regardless. In some ways I don't see snow's response as invalid; the sacrificial narrative is largely metaphorical in explaining God's love and intention. The latter is genuine, and the important thing. Did Jesus actually have to die on the Cross in the sense of a physical chain of cause and effect? Or is the narrative just an analogy to help us understand God's love, the sacrifice of his own son, in terms that are meaningful to us. This becomes problematic for a lot of people because they consider it a denial of the narrative. But to me, at some level, the story departs from its historicity to take on purely metaphorical meaning. I do believe that Jesus lived and died and went to the Cross. Did he re-appear after his death, in the flesh? I'm probably with Thomas in wanting to feel the actual nailprints to be sure of that point. I'm troubled by Christians who want to claim the sacrifice of Jesus as only for them, or for those who come to a certain level of understanding or belief. I see the Christ when I see Christ-like action, and I often see it outside of Christianity. This probably seems weird to most Christians, but I see as much or more value in many artistic works and stories outside of Christianity that affirm Christ's life for me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 28, 2014 10:47:11 GMT -5
And even though the Bible indicates that we can be perfected in Christ this side of the grave (ie sanctification) we know that we will continue to sin until we die. But we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Colossians and other places) and so we have a sure hope that we will be perfected at death - not in any way because we deserve it - but because God has promised that he will do this to those who put their trust in Him. God has been been completely gracious and completely just - he has dealt with our sins and asks us to completely trust and serve the One who has paid the price for our guilt and shame. It's not a hard thing to do when we compare it to what God has done for us - but I seem to forget his grace from time to time. Elizabeth - you are completely on the money. We always want natural justice to prevail but if we commit wrong we desire grace and mercy. God desires justice to prevail but provides grace and mercy for all which is quite an amazing concept. And the usual big brackets around the statement are the words "those who put their trust in Him". I do appreciate Christians who believe as you do; they can and do make a positive difference in the world, most of the time. It's just a shame that in your mind God's mercy is limited to "those who put their trust in Him", where "Him" means "a conception of God as defined by Christian orthodoxy". In my conception of God, He desires only righteousness, and a commitment to righteousness in our lives.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 28, 2014 10:51:12 GMT -5
Ah yes, and this is where it always starts to slowly unravel, this whole GTF, GTS, GTHS thing... The Gospel in Four ParagraphsThe Hopeful Beginning: GOD (the Father, presumably. I mean c'mon He's THE FATHER, duh!) creates man in His own image. Hooray for humans! Life is groovy, the Earth rocks, and everything is sunshine and roses. The Messy Middle: GOD the Father (or the entire Trinity, I'm not sure; it's a little fuzzy at this point) gets ANGRY at His created beings because of their penchant for disobedience and general nastiness. The level of his anger comes as a bit of a surprise considering He made these beings in His image and He is, after all, omniscient and omnipresent. (Which begs the question: If you KNEW something you were creating was going to go rogue on you -- in fact, if that was a built-in design feature -- how/why would you get angry when said roguishness occurred?? Isn't this what we call "blame shifting"...?) It got ugly fast, and GOD became eye-popping mad at his humans for behaving like ... humans. Before long He wanted to launch everyone's sorry butt into a lake of eternal fire!! (And you thought your 3rd grade teacher was mean!) Yes, that's how much He (GTF, GTS, GTHS) DESPISED us humans!! The Part That Gets a Little Weird: So, GOD the Father in divine consultation with God the Son (God the Holy Spirit was keeping the minutes, no doubt) decides the only way to mitigate the aforementioned "rogue creation disaster" is to have Himself killed! (Which begs the next 2 questions: 1) How do you kill an eternal being -- Kryponite Plus? 2) What is it about killing things that always seems to appease the gods?) And get this, because it's the most important point of all: He had Himself killed not to save us from that ne'er-do-well, the Devil (aka Lucifer, aka Satan, aka the Serpent, aka Barack Obama), as your Sunday school teacher might have taught you, but to save us from ... Himself!! That's right, boys and girls, it turns out that this here's a really complicated relationship. You see, on one hand (or maybe that's three hands?) GOD (GTF, GTS, GTHS) despises us, but on the other hand (or the other 3 hands?) He (GTF, GTS, GTHS) is also madly in love with us!!! ~Birds singing, little hearts floating up in the sky, soft wind in your hair (tightly bound on top of your head, of course, if you're a woman)~ In other words, GOD had himself killed (as mentioned above) in a most humiliating and painful way so that he wouldn't have to hate us anymore! Wow, how's that for a plot twist?! The Summation and the Happy Ending: So, in summary, GOD made people. People were not nice. GOD was so angry at people He was ready to torture them in hideous ways that would have made even Pol Pot cringe. But then, in an amazing change of heart, God had Himself brutally murdered so that He wouldn't be angry anymore. Yay, everything is groovy again! Best of all, one fine, polygamous day we're all going to get married to Him (to God the Son, that is; God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are remaining eternal bachelors, apparently) and we're going to live happily ever after in mansions of gold! -- The End You have quite effectively parodied what I see as the more untenable parts of Christian doctrine. So I'm wondering, where does that leave you in your conception of God. A totally unworkable concept? Agnostic? Atheistic? Some other religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 28, 2014 21:53:51 GMT -5
And the usual big brackets around the statement are the words "those who put their trust in Him". I do appreciate Christians who believe as you do; they can and do make a positive difference in the world, most of the time. It's just a shame that in your mind God's mercy is limited to "those who put their trust in Him", where "Him" means "a conception of God as defined by Christian orthodoxy". In my conception of God, He desires only righteousness, and a commitment to righteousness in our lives. I agree he desires righteousness but knows that we can't ultimately deliver that. By trust I mean that we turn to only One who has been completely righteous and sinless and serve Him as King and Saviour. We are given a new body/self (another gift) and the Holy Spirit to point us to the Righteous One continually and who will change us to be more like Jesus. The way I would put is that when I turn to someone who is the only One that can help or rescue me I put, by definition, my trust in them to save me. He does just that, saves us, and as part of that process we make a commitment to live differently (ie for Him). He is completely righteous so yes that involves making a commitment to live as He wants us to. But ultimately what saves us is that we are clothed in His righteousness - our sins have been completely dealth with. Our attempts to be righteous which I am sure are respected by God will fall short no matter how good we are. I guess that's the way I see it. Maybe we differ on who God is - not sure? Here's what I think we differ on. You've explained what it means to you to trust in God. I have no quarrel with that. But I believe that individuals who have never known Jesus can still be committed to righteousness. In a sense then, they do know the Spirit of Christ, without ever having heard Christian doctrine. If they hear the Gospel and are receptive to it, so much the better, but it's not necessary to hear and follow it in order to be saved. (Or rather to be restored to God, which I believe is a process.) To me it just amounts to trying to live a good life, as trite as that may sound. Of course, we can't earn our way in to heaven, which is why God sacrificed his Son. But we need to try to do our best. Conversely, any one who does try to live a good life, whether they accept the Christian faith or not, pleases God. Jesus said we just need to love God and to love our neighbour. I believe that someone who has faith to live a good life, to help others, has vision of a kind. To me, that's as good as loving God. Jesus said as much. Whoever helps the poor, helps me, he said.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 29, 2014 9:52:25 GMT -5
Here's what I think we differ on. You've explained what it means to you to trust in God. I have no quarrel with that. But I believe that individuals who have never known Jesus can still be committed to righteousness. In a sense then, they do know the Spirit of Christ, without ever having heard Christian doctrine. If they hear the Gospel and are receptive to it, so much the better, but it's not necessary to hear and follow it in order to be saved. (Or rather to be restored to God, which I believe is a process.) To me it just amounts to trying to live a good life, as trite as that may sound. Of course, we can't earn our way in to heaven, which is why God sacrificed his Son. But we need to try to do our best. Conversely, any one who does try to live a good life, whether they accept the Christian faith or not, pleases God. Jesus said we just need to love God and to love our neighbour. I believe that someone who has faith to live a good life, to help others, has vision of a kind. To me, that's as good as loving God. Jesus said as much. Whoever helps the poor, helps me, he said. I am sure there are those who have not yet heard the good news about Jesus.....and there will be many who died in past ages who also did not get a chance to hear it. I think you are right where folk haven't really heard the gospel of Jesus that God knows the hearts of all who are His and if they have turned to Him I am sure they will be saved. However, I'm interested in your thoughts on what happens in a society where the message of Jesus is widely known. If people choose to trust in God and try to do what is right but exclude Jesus in the process (even passively?) isn't that problematic. Obviously, God knows who are His and would want all to be saved.....but I think it does pose a problem when the Gospel message about Jesus is widely known. Interested in your thoughts. Good question. First of all, neither one of us really knows how God will judge in every situation. But I do think that what makes sense to us in love, would make sense to God, in love. And how we think about different situations affects our decisions about evangelism and so on, so it is worth thinking and talking about. Second, I believe that God moves in many ways, so the way I approach the issue of service versus the workers approach versus a 'direct aid' approach; all work to the glory and purpose of God. That is, God will use our efforts in his service, and in mysterious ways; so I think we would both agree to that. The important thing is that we work to what we think God wants, but God's Will is going to be done regardless of what we decide as individuals. With that out of the way, there's a few situations we can think about. 1. A person who was abused as a child in an established church, whatever denomination it was, either sexually, physically or emotionally. I believe it is too much to expect that person to be receptive to the Gospel. Basically, the messengers have corrupted or destroyed the message. While I don't have any general answers in this case, I think it's absurd to think that God will expect that person to be receptive to the Gospel of Jesus as taught by the church. This is why I like the doctrine of restoration; which indicates we do have a chance beyond lifetime. 2. A person who was not raised in a Christian home, and more and more this is the majority of our society, are not going to rise above the barriers of skepticism because of the way Jesus is taught, and because of the things that Christians say and believe. They may reject Christianity because of the perceived stance on abortion, euthenasia, homosexuality; positions which are read as doctrinaire, unloving and inflexible. They may also reject Christianity because they see the dangers of literalism, an anti-science agenda, a strong conservative political agenda, an adherence to superstition (e.g. young Earth theory), all beliefs that pollute or are at best, are completely irrelevant to the Gospel message. Unfortunately, to people who more and more have never heard the Gospel, the church appears to lead with rigid doctrine, instead of with the Gospel. How will God judge that in the end? I think he'll treat individuals in that context similarly to the way he'd treat cultures that never had opportunity to hear the Gospel. 3. A person raised in a Christian home who believes and rejects. This person is vulnerable to God's judgement. I would argue though that it is because a life committed to righteousness and a life committed to Christ are synonymous in their mind. That is, they have rejected righteousness when they reject Christ. They live a dissipated life style in full knowledge and understanding that Christ wanted more. Now, we all are in that position to an extent. But both you and I struggle with pleasing God, and through God's grace and Christ's sacrifice, we know God will receive us. (And besides all that, I'm a universalist, so 'eternal Hell' is not a worry for me. But the disfavour of God is a concern, or rather, the favour of God is a thing to be greatly desired ... now and after life is over.) 4. An atheist. I believe the standard of judgement I described in point 3, works for the atheist. An atheist has decided to reject the message of the church, but I don't believe they are *necessarily* beyond the language and message of the Gospel. I believe the message of the Gospel is from God's heart to peoples' hearts. It does not matter so much how you define God or if you define him at all.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 29, 2014 10:21:21 GMT -5
I agree he desires righteousness but knows that we can't ultimately deliver that. By trust I mean that we turn to only One who has been completely righteous and sinless and serve Him as King and Saviour. We are given a new body/self (another gift) and the Holy Spirit to point us to the Righteous One continually and who will change us to be more like Jesus. The way I would put is that when I turn to someone who is the only One that can help or rescue me I put, by definition, my trust in them to save me. He does just that, saves us, and as part of that process we make a commitment to live differently (ie for Him). He is completely righteous so yes that involves making a commitment to live as He wants us to. But ultimately what saves us is that we are clothed in His righteousness - our sins have been completely dealth with. Our attempts to be righteous which I am sure are respected by God will fall short no matter how good we are. I guess that's the way I see it. Maybe we differ on who God is - not sure? Here's what I think we differ on. You've explained what it means to you to trust in God. I have no quarrel with that. But I believe that individuals who have never known Jesus can still be committed to righteousness. In a sense then, they do know the Spirit of Christ, without ever having heard Christian doctrine. If they hear the Gospel and are receptive to it, so much the better, but it's not necessary to hear and follow it in order to be saved. (Or rather to be restored to God, which I believe is a process.) To me it just amounts to trying to live a good life, as trite as that may sound. Of course, we can't earn our way in to heaven, which is why God sacrificed his Son. But we need to try to do our best. Conversely, any one who does try to live a good life, whether they accept the Christian faith or not, pleases God. Jesus said we just need to love God and to love our neighbour. I believe that someone who has faith to live a good life, to help others, has vision of a kind. To me, that's as good as loving God. Jesus said as much. Whoever helps the poor, helps me, he said. What Hat, are you not thinking about "works" instead of the grace and mercy which Jesus bought for mankind? I believe you are. These people you're speaking about WILL face the righteous Judge, their deeds will be recorded in the book of deeds....however their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life UNTIL they "BELIEVE in Jesus Christ"! Now whether God grants them life eternal as their reward for living a clean and humanely righteous life is up to Him entirely, for there are NO precepts or concepts written in the bible about that. The "eternal life" concept/doctrine/precept is clearly stated in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." The "should" there being a condition also that is determined by the righteous Judge! Also, we have to remember that Jesus went into the depth of Hades or hell or the grave and preached the gospel of salvation there....Is it possible that those whom he released fromt he bonds of death, are not ordained by Jesus to preach the gospel to such as you are speaking about and again I noticed that Ross brings a condition up that brings more doubt about self righteous lifing folks gaining eternal life simply because they do not know who Jesus Christ is...... My opinion is this: I feel that God in all His truth and mercy and grace...will hold out eternal life to persons we would have thought ourselves that would perish by the second death.....however, we have NO way of knowing how the righteous JUdge is going to hand out rewards for those who are due rewards for their deeds, now are we? To be sure of our eternal salvation though, we are taught within the NT that believing on Jesus Christ gives us that confidence ineternal salvation! JMT
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 29, 2014 10:24:14 GMT -5
The last time I went to Texarkana Conv., there was a brother worker, I think an overseer, who made it clear to us that he understood that there is NO way we can make God in debt to us by righteous deeds...the fact of us going to all the mtgs, etc we can and willingly live those things we hear....that that in NO way will gain us eternal life because we just cannot make God indebted to us.
I can understand what this worker was saying....he was dividing "works" from "grace"!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 29, 2014 12:42:15 GMT -5
Here's what I think we differ on. You've explained what it means to you to trust in God. I have no quarrel with that. But I believe that individuals who have never known Jesus can still be committed to righteousness. In a sense then, they do know the Spirit of Christ, without ever having heard Christian doctrine. If they hear the Gospel and are receptive to it, so much the better, but it's not necessary to hear and follow it in order to be saved. (Or rather to be restored to God, which I believe is a process.) To me it just amounts to trying to live a good life, as trite as that may sound. Of course, we can't earn our way in to heaven, which is why God sacrificed his Son. But we need to try to do our best. Conversely, any one who does try to live a good life, whether they accept the Christian faith or not, pleases God. Jesus said we just need to love God and to love our neighbour. I believe that someone who has faith to live a good life, to help others, has vision of a kind. To me, that's as good as loving God. Jesus said as much. Whoever helps the poor, helps me, he said. What Hat, are you not thinking about "works" instead of the grace and mercy which Jesus bought for mankind? I believe you are. These people you're speaking about WILL face the righteous Judge, their deeds will be recorded in the book of deeds....however their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life UNTIL they "BELIEVE in Jesus Christ"! Now whether God grants them life eternal as their reward for living a clean and humanely righteous life is up to Him entirely, for there are NO precepts or concepts written in the bible about that. The "eternal life" concept/doctrine/precept is clearly stated in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." The "should" there being a condition also that is determined by the righteous Judge! Also, we have to remember that Jesus went into the depth of Hades or hell or the grave and preached the gospel of salvation there....Is it possible that those whom he released fromt he bonds of death, are not ordained by Jesus to preach the gospel to such as you are speaking about and again I noticed that Ross brings a condition up that brings more doubt about self righteous lifing folks gaining eternal life simply because they do not know who Jesus Christ is...... My opinion is this: I feel that God in all His truth and mercy and grace...will hold out eternal life to persons we would have thought ourselves that would perish by the second death.....however, we have NO way of knowing how the righteous JUdge is going to hand out rewards for those who are due rewards for their deeds, now are we? To be sure of our eternal salvation though, we are taught within the NT that believing on Jesus Christ gives us that confidence in eternal salvation! JMT Anything that we think about how God will judge is at best a guess. Still we need to have some idea of that in order to conduct our lives, and also in terms of how we evangelize. If you truthfully thought that those who lose out are going to eternal damnation, then really, the only rational response is to get out there with a placard telling people they are condemned to a lost eternity. Or get them to convert at gunpoint. Anything you can do at all. But people don't do that, so I don't think most people actually take the "eternal Hell" idea all that seriously. Possibly, a few do. I agree with you that we can't earn our way into heaven through works. It's somehow difficult to say anything about works at all without some people translating that into "against grace". The f&w are accused of a works-based salvation all the time, but they are not preaching a works-based salvation, as your example illustrates. They do have an issue with legalism and works within the group though. A number of churches, even ones that are big on grace doctrine, become judgemental, and you tend to go from judgementalism to legalism and emphasis on works, when you think about it. The final thought is the idea "that you must believe in Jesus Christ". On that point, I'm much less certain than you are. I do reject the entire concept of eternal life versus eternal damnation. I don't read the Bible with those optics and it has never gotten me into trouble yet. I think it's a doctrine built on 'sand' that ignores the fundamentals of a loving God who sacrificed his Son for all mankind. I do believe in the concepts of reward, justice and retribution which are in the hands of God. I think the way most Christians think about it, is "received wisdom". That is, any Christian will tell you just about exactly the same thing in terms of doctrine. They don't 'own' the belief because when you own a belief you can think and speak about it creatively. (Some orthodox Christians can think outside the box, but quite a few of them really want a ready-made formula which they find comforting.)
|
|