|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 29, 2008 20:14:05 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Mo wrote:
Mo, if you are unable to accept that most of the realities of the universe are deep mysteries beyond our fathoming, then I really feel sorry for you. It must be excruciating to apply the standards you subject others' beliefs to to your own beliefs. Can you rest your head at night knowing there are more things we don't know that things we do know about reality?
This is true in science and this is true in religion and this is true in every facet of our lives. The knowledge we have is like fireflies in a vast sea of mysterious dark.
But just as in science, where the knowledge we do have leads us to yet more mysteries, so it is in Christian belief. We can explain and reduce certain aspects of beliefs so far, but at some point we reach a "cloud of unknowing".
If this is so, how are we to judge what beliefs are most likely valid and which aren't?
We have to work with what we do have for the moment and see if it makes enough sense to warrant belief that it continues to do so beyond our knowledge.
It's like we're seeing the tip of the iceburg and you're denying the rest of it (the biggest part) exists because we can't dive down into the freezing water and touch it.
Don't judge the tip of the iceburg for failing to be the whole thing-judge it on it's own merits for as far as it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 30, 2008 10:38:58 GMT -8
Common Josh, what are you talking about? You should know by now how I feel about this. I never said we knew or had to know everything. I have repeated my point of view in several different threads (and there’s a chance you might have read one or the other).
I have to admit that I already sensed that my point could be misunderstood in the way you misunderstood it. So I’ll try to explain it again.
Here’s the quote:
The important part of this is: “it reveals the incapacity of Christians to bring different biblical claims together coherently”.
This means that there are Christian claims that are often contradicting other claims, or lacking coherence with other claims.
Example:
Christian claim 1: God is omnipotent.
Christian claim 2: Jesus had to die on the cross to absorbe sin.
Is claim two reasonable given claim 1?
Mo question: If God is omnipotent, why would he have to send his son/himself to the cross to obsorbe sin? Wouldn’t he have better ways of solving problems?
Christian answer: It’s a mystery!
Do you understand what I mean now? It’s not like:
Mo: What is God’s favourite color?
Josh: We don’t know.
Mo: AHA!
It’s more like:
Josh: I believe determinism and free will can simultaneously exist.
Mo: How is that supposed to be possible?
Josh: It’s a mystery!
Do you see the difference?
I’m perfectly fine with the existence of mysteries. As long as those mysteries don’t contradict each other.
Take gravity. We know a lot about it but we can’t fully explain it. The big difference to Christian mysteries is that it doesn’t contradict the physical laws! The physical laws like the theory of relativity make sense even though gravity remains a mystery.
The questions I’m asking are not random. They challenge the logic of Christianity. I’ve said it before. Christianity claims really far out stuff. Stuff that isn’t testable, measurable or verifiable. Okay, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But if Christianity wants to be taken seriously, it must be consistent. God’s measures must make sense if you want to expect a sane man to buy the story. As far as I can see, we have a lot of grotesque claims which, when examined, lead to mystery. The claims are inconsistent. You are moving completely in the sphere of guessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 31, 2008 8:29:33 GMT -8
OK, thanks for the re-clarification.
On to your examples of contradiction/incoherence.
I don't think this is either a contradiction or incoherent and in various places on the forums this has been answered satisfactorily, yet you continue to tout it as an intractable problem.
Once again, God is in essense omnipotent, but chooses to limit his omnipotence in order to accomplish his plans in the universe.
If the universe is like a computer program, he has set up the code and doesn't break it*.
Originally, he created humans with conditional immortality and told them that if they sinned, the rules of the game were that for sin death would be the punishment. This makes perfect sense to me. Life was his gift, the taking away of life was the penalty for rebellion.
Because God chose to set it up this way, He had to work within His own rules. He couldn't just snap his fingers and make it "all good" because that would break the rules He set up.
It's interesting to note that almost all ancient cultures shared the view that because something had gone wrong between humans and God/ the gods, death had to be the propitiation. I don't think this is a crazy mass anomoly in human history. It's rather logical. If we misuse the life we've been given, we deserve to die. Perhaps we can appease God by having something die in our place.
Sacrifices weren't effectual to make things right, but they did point to the fact that there was no easy way to satisfy justice. They pointed to the need for a truly atoning sacrifice- an innocent one who could truly satisfy the "rules of the game".
Lewis calls all this the "deep magic", btw.
But God also worked into the rules a plan to satisfy both justice and mercy- the death of His Son on our behalf (Lewis' "deeper magic")
I could go on, but the point here is not to say why God didn't do it another way, but to show that God set up the rules a certain way and there is no contradiction between his omnipotence and His working within the rules that He set down.
The "why this way?" is the mystery, but we don't need the answer to that to see that there is still no contradiction and no incoherence.
The predestination/ free will thing is much more protracted and better served on the current posts related to that (if I ever get a chance. I'm swimming in posts!)
* He has figured some "easter eggs" (perfect analogy!!) into it, however, which allow him, without breaking rules to enter into the program, interact within it, and perform exceptional things we call miracles.
I'M ALSO ADDING IN HERE (AFTER THE FACT, SEPT. 11, 2008, THE CONTENTS OF A SIMILAR POST FROM THE DEFINING SIN THREAD THAT I THINK NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS THERE IS A TON OF OVERLAP):
As we've said on other threads, God, though in essence omnipotent, has chosen to operate the universe within certain perameters. He has chosen that:
Hebrews 9:22b
...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Though we don't know all the reasons why He set things up this way, I think it has a certain logic to it, and a fairness.
The best way to understand the relationship between the act/state and the consequence IMO is this:
Unending life (both physical and spiritual) was granted to mankind as a gift. The gift was fitting only for perfect beings. Mankind in his rebellion has become imperfect, and therefore forfeits the life. In other words, death in the necessary consequence- it satisfies justice.
Almost all ancient cultures had an understanding similar to this- thus the proliferation of sacrifices in the ancient world. The idea was that if something had to die, perhaps something could die on our behalf.
What the Bible reveals as it progresses is that such sacrifices were not in and of themselves efficacious. They were only beneficial in that they looked forward in trust of God to a day when a truly atoning sacrifice would be made for mankind.
The above logic speaks to God's justice- that the penalty for sin is the forfeiting of God's give of life.
But God is also merciful. However, God would not pit his mercy and against His justice. Both must be sasified, so though God wishes to forgive, the payment must still be made.
God's solution to upholding both justice and mercy is to offer His one and only up as a perfect innocent sacrifice on behalf of all humans.
At the very least this is one of the most genius literary plot twists in all of human literature. At the most it is nothing less than the main plot of the universe.
Though not all the "whys" can obviously be satisfied, the whole plot is quite coherent.
So, all this to say: God will not just forgive sins without the cost for those sins being paid. He must uphold justice and mercy at the same time. Either we pay the cost, or let someone else. But either way, it must be paid.
I find this answer personally completely logical and satisfying.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 5, 2008 8:27:16 GMT -8
Hey Josh, I don't think this is either a contradiction or incoherent and in various places on the forums this has been answered satisfactorily, yet you continue to tout it as an intractable problem. Frankly, I haven't seen a single satisfactory answer to the problems I presented. On the contrary, I feel like I've shown the fallacies of the provided answers everytime. Yet YOU continue tp pretend as if that didn't happen. I guess we are really hung up here.  I'll give it another shot. Here is what you wrote in order to show the coherence of the Christian claims. What follows is my answer to it. I've tried to be as precise as possible. And I've tried not to be harsh. If my language should appear harsh at any point, please keep in mind that it wasn't my intention. I hope you will understand my points better hereafter. Once again, God is in essense omnipotent, but chooses to limit his omnipotence in order to accomplish his plans in the universe. If the universe is like a computer program, he has set up the code and doesn't break it*. Originally, he created humans with conditional immortality and told them that if they sinned, the rules of the game were that for sin death would be the punishment. This makes perfect sense to me. Life was his gift, the taking away of life was the penalty for rebellion. Because God chose to set it up this way, He had to work within His own rules. He couldn't just snap his fingers and make it "all good" because that would break the rules He set up. It's interesting to note that almost all ancient cultures shared the view that because something had gone wrong between humans and God/ the gods, death had to be the propitiation. I don't think this is a crazy mass anomoly in human history. It's rather logical. If we misuse the life we've been given, we deserve to die. Perhaps we can appease God by having something die in our place. Sacrifices weren't effectual to make things right, but they did point to the fact that there was no easy way to satisfy justice. They pointed to the need for a truly atoning sacrifice- an innocent one who could truly satisfy the "rules of the game". Lewis calls all this the "deep magic", btw. But God also worked into the rules a plan to satisfy both justice and mercy- the death of His Son on our behalf (Lewis' "deeper magic") I could go on, but the point here is not to say why God didn't do it another way, but to show that God set up the rules a certain way and there is no contradiction between his omnipotence and His working within the rules that He set down. The "why this way?" is the mystery, but we don't need the answer to that to see that there is still no contradiction and no incoherence. The predestination/ free will thing is much more protracted and better served on the current posts related to that (if I ever get a chance. I'm swimming in posts!) * He has figured some "easter eggs" (perfect analogy!!) into it, however, which allow him, without breaking rules to enter into the program, interact within it, and perform exceptional things we call miracles. 1. The concept that forgiveness can only take place through bloodshed is about as logical as the concept that werewolves can only be killed by silver bullets. It contradicts the practical “experiencability” of guilt and forgiveness on earth: If I do you wrong, realize my fault, regret it honestly and apologize, there is a chance you will forgive me – without bloodshed! It is comprehension and repent that satisfies justice, not blood. Least of all innocent blood! More on that later. If you forgive me, my misdeed isn’t undone, but my guilt comes undone! It becomes a part of the past without validity in the present or the future. In German we say: “Es ist aus der Welt geschafft“, which literally translated means: “It’s disposed of the world”. I find it highly illogical that what is possible for humans - namely forgiveness without bloodshed - is supposed to be impossible for God. It becomes even more illogical given the premise that God is love. A God that can only forgive through bloodshed isn’t good but truly evil. 2. But the most illogical part of your explanation is that the blood of a third, innocent person could atone for the guilt of another person. Why that’s illogical? Let’s just relocate the case to planet earth. I slap you in the face, I apologize and – in order to show you that I really mean it – I crucify a third, innocent person, who has nothing to do with it. Does that ring a bell? Do you agree that this is no possible way of reaching forgiveness? But that’s not enough yet: 3. In your biblical example the one who actually has to pay the price for forgiveness is the aggrieved party! So I slap you in the face and in order to facilitate the forgiveness of my malefaction, I crucify you! With all due respect, this is simply absurd. I don’t mean this as mockery. I mean it in the true sense of the word. You say it rings coherent to you and I ask you how is that possible? The logic you presented has lost any touch with reality. 4. You are basing everything on arbitrary premises. God has limited his own power on purpose… where do you get that from? Does that stand in the Bible?* It doesn’t seem so. It rather seems as if you came up with this yourself.** But even if the Bible says so, how does it make sense? You say God has set the rules und now he may not break his own rules. I ask you again, how does this make sense? Every institution on earth, from a State to a small club, modifies its rules when they realize the system doesn’t work like it’s is supposed to. When the State notices that the laws don’t work out well, they change the laws. When a new phenomenon enters a sport and the rules aren’t covering it, the rules are being extended. That rules are unchangeable once being set is simply not true. It’s an invalid premise. 5. Further more, it’s plain stupid not to change deficient rules. What is God, a stubborn fool who prefers to crucify himself than to change the rules? I don’t think so. Didn’t you say he’s omniscient? Doesn’t that mean he knew how his rules would turn out even before he created the earth? Can’t we derive from this that he WANTED to be nailed to the cross? If God is ultimate love, this makes no sense at all. It’s illogical. 6. You said God has set the rules but he planted some Easter eggs so he actually CAN legally break his own rules. He may break his rules when bread has to be multiplied, when dead people must resurrect, he may break his own rules and let his son walk on the water, he can have cut off ears reattached without sewing kit, he can split the Red Sea. He can let woman get pregnant after the menopause, he can make wild predators and their prey peacefully sit together side by side in the arch, he can let blind men see, but he CAN’T forgive sin without bloodshed, because that would break the rules. If that isn’t absolutely illogical… 7. Then there’s this question of why all this? Why doesn’t he just forgive sin without bloodshed as any large-hearted person would? The question doesn’t carry much weight in your opinion because you rely on God’s wisdom. I think my explanation shows that this wisdom is rather questionable. And so I DO ask why. To quote a theatre play I was starring in recently: “If there’s no motive, where is the case?” If we can’t provide compelling answers to such questions, the measures remain under the strong suspicion of illogicalness. I think I reasonably showed that the answers you provided aren’t compelling but on the contrary illogical themselves. 8. As I pointed out, God’s measures don’t seem to make much sense. You can say: “Just because we humans don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it’s illogical.” But I say: If it contradicts human logic, then there can’t be a different conclusion for a human than that it’s illogical. Every concept we have of logic is based on human logic. If something doesn’t answer to human logic, we call it illogical. *If it does, why are there any theological debates about God’s omipotence? **By the way, there is still one of many open questions in the God’s personality thread. You said Chris and you agreed on the issue of God’s omnipotence but I think I pointed out that you actually don’t. You never replied to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2008 18:58:19 GMT -8
This is interesting because after reading everything you've said, the doctrine of the atonement still seems coherent to me.
First off, it's not that forgiveness requires bloodshed. It's that the natural penalty for sin is the forfeiting of life, which was the conditional gift of God to mankind. This is the point at which God cannot just change up the rules. He could forgive anything, but He must also satisfy the justice of the cost of pre-existing conditions.
You can't solidly compare human forgiveness to God's for a specific reason (and I'll quote Millard Erickson's Christian Theology here to save some time):
God is not merely a private person who has been wronged, but he is also the official administrator of the judicial system. As a private person he could in a sense forgive offenses against himself, just as humans forgive one another. But for God to remove or ignore the guilt of sin without requiring a payment would in effect destroy the very moral fiber of the universe, the distinction between right and wrong.
He goes on:
An additional problem is that God is a being of infinite or perfect holiness and goodness. An offense against him is much more serious than an offense against an ordinary sinful human. When someone sins against us, we are aware that the fault may at least in part be ours, and that we have on numerous other occasions sinned against others, and probably against the very person who is presently wronging us. But with God, who does not tempt or do wrong, there is no such element of imperfection to make our sin seem less dreadful.
First off, those who crucified (or crucify Christ) don't purposefully kill him in order to be forgiven.
Secondly, as we've discussed elsewhere apparently with no resolution, Christ is the willing substitute.
Lastly, it's precisely because he is the aggreived party that He is the only one who can satisfy both mercy and justice.
Furthermore, as we've said elsewhere, in light of the Trinity, God is both the judge and the person paying the penalty.
The mystery that still remains, granted, is exactly how Christ's substitution on our behalf is efficacious. What I'm defending here is that Christ's death is coherent and makes sense within the given parameters. In other words, we can say why Christ needed to die, but not how exactly His death brought about reconciliation (though we can take some stabs at this...)
When I get a chance I'll respond next to your points 4-8, so can you wait for a bit until I do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 11, 2008 6:54:48 GMT -8
When I get a chance I'll respond next to your points 4-8, so can you wait for a bit until I do that? I'm waiting... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 11, 2008 20:08:48 GMT -8
The Bible says that God has made it so that there are things it is impossible for Him to do:
-lie, Hebrews 6:18
-tempt or be tempted, James 1:13
-change, Malachi 3:6, james 1:17
-change his mind, Numbers 23:19
-take pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 33:11
In fact, every time God says He won't do something, that's another thing He can't do.
As I've said elsewhere, the Bible also indicates that Jesus willingly divested Himself of the powers of the Godhead, instead relying on the Father's power through the Holy Spirit within Him (Phil. 2:5-8, John 5:30)
How much clearer must this be?
There isn't a debate about God's omnipotence. He is omnipotent in essense, but limited in action by His own choices. The ony real debate among Christians is whether or not He can or cannot do certain particular things, as far as I see it.
You're assuming that the system didn't work like it was supposed to. But I'm saying it did. He didn't change the rules because they did work. He knew how it would go, and it was worth it to Him knowing everything He knows. He still wants justice to be satisfied- so much so that He's willing to send Himself in to pay the penalty.
WANTED to can mean so many different things. If you mean WILLED to, then that's most likely closer to the truth.
Actually, I specifically said that the "Easter eggs" don't break the rules:
He has figured some "easter eggs" (perfect analogy!!) into it, however, which allow him, without breaking rules to enter into the program, interact within it, and perform exceptional things we call miracles.
I'm arguing that none of those examples you gave above involve God breaking any physical rules. It's just that God has access to aspects of physicality that we don't. Just as an example, I'm arguing something like God operating multidimensionally. If multiple dimensions do exist, and God is by definition the "being greater than that which can be conceived" then he must be able to operate at the very least within them.
He can do those things because He allowed Himself that right and privilege. But He must die for sin because He didn't allow Himself any out on that. And the Bible tells us this. You might wonder why in the heck God would do it that way, but this is not illogical. The logic is simple:
1. An God who is omnipotent in essence can set things up any way He wants.
2. He chose some things He wouldn't (and therefore couldn't) do (forgive sins without payment of penalty)
3. And He chose some things He could do (perform miracles)
This was addressed above to some extent. "Large-hearted people" must forgive without bloodshed because we are all guilty- even the best of us. But they can only forgive personal wrongs. For instance, I can't forgive you for lies you told to someone else.
But God is the final arbiter of the entire moral universe. He alone can completely forgive anything. And for this kind of forgiveness, there is a cost by His decree.
First off, something can be beyond understanding and still not contradict logic. This whole issue of God choosing to set things up the way He did regarding atonement is a perfect example. You can't demonstrate a fallacy in logic about it. It's just that we don't exactly know all of the why he did it this way (though I feel much further down the road toward a why than apparently you are).
And human logic, as it is normally experienced, is limited by perception. There are things we know of that defy our perceptive logic but not abstract logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 16:12:16 GMT -8
This is interesting because after reading everything you've said, the doctrine of the atonement still seems coherent to me. *sigh* Alright, I won’t let this rest until we’ve come to a result. First off, it's not that forgiveness requires bloodshed. No? Here’s your own scripture quote: “Hebrews 9:22b ...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” It's that the natural penalty for sin is the forfeiting of life, which was the conditional gift of God to mankind. This is the point at which God cannot just change up the rules. He could forgive anything, but He must also satisfy the justice of the cost of pre-existing conditions. I just don’t see why he can’t change the rules, and why in the world he would need human blood to justify his rules. This is simply cruel. It has nothing to do with love. I have no problem with death being the penalty for sin (although I find it way out of proportion). But it makes no sense that God’s sense of justice has to be satisfied with blood, death or any kind of suffering. How could blood possibly satisfy justice? It makes much more sense in the context of an antiquated society which actually thought that justice could be satisfied through vendetta. In an enlightened society such motives are at best base motives, absolutely unworthy of a dignified God. The thought alone that God’s morals are below our own moral standards is ridiculous. You can't solidly compare human forgiveness to God's for a specific reason Josh, I’m questioning whether God even exists. I’m approaching this question from what is able to be experienced for me. We can’t randomly set a divine standard. God’s moves must make sense according to human logic otherwise I’ll call them illogical. God is not merely a private person who has been wronged, but he is also the official administrator of the judicial system. As a private person he could in a sense forgive offenses against himself, just as humans forgive one another. But for God to remove or ignore the guilt of sin without requiring a payment would in effect destroy the very moral fiber of the universe, the distinction between right and wrong. Alright, and why not through repentance of the wrongdoer? He goes on: An additional problem is that God is a being of infinite or perfect holiness and goodness. An offense against him is much more serious than an offense against an ordinary sinful human. When someone sins against us, we are aware that the fault may at least in part be ours, and that we have on numerous other occasions sinned against others, and probably against the very person who is presently wronging us. But with God, who does not tempt or do wrong, there is no such element of imperfection to make our sin seem less dreadful.God is doing wrong all the time. What is that guy talking about? Just go through the GPT (God’s personality thread). I find it shameless to say such a thing. And not convincing either. If God is pure dignity and love the relevance of our earthly sin is insignificant. First off, those who crucified (or crucify Christ) don't purposefully kill him in order to be forgiven. So what? That doesn’t change anything. The idea is that an innocent person could pay for our sin and I’m asking you, where is the logic? I can only repeat. If you slap me in the face and you don’t apologize and don’t even feel sorry, I’m not gonna forgive you. If a third person apologizes on your behalf, I won’t forgive you either. This is simply not the way to satisfy justice. Secondly, as we've discussed elsewhere apparently with no resolution, Christ is the willing substitute. Sometimes willing, sometimes unwilling. Always depending in which thread we are discussing. Anyway, I don’t see how this could satisfy justice. Lastly, it's precisely because he is the aggreived party that He is the only one who can satisfy both mercy and justice. And this is the part I understand the least. God, being offended, has to go to the cross in order to satisfy his justice. The human analogy shows the entire bizarreness so I’ll repeat: I’ll slap you in the face and you have to be crucified in order to satisfy justice. Illogical. The mystery that still remains, granted, is exactly how Christ's substitution on our behalf is efficacious. What I'm defending here is that Christ's death is coherent and makes sense within the given parameters. And I’m showing you that it isn’t coherent. The victim being punished for the damage it received isn’t justice. A child could see that. In other words, we can say why Christ needed to die, but not how exactly His death brought about reconciliation (though we can take some stabs at this...) For the time being we can’t say why Christ needed to die at all. It makes no sense. The Bible says that God has made it so that there are things it is impossible for Him to do: -lie, Hebrews 6:18 -tempt or be tempted, James 1:13 -change, Malachi 3:6, james 1:17 -change his mind, Numbers 23:19 -take pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 33:11 In fact, every time God says He won't do something, that's another thing He can't do. Does the Bible say God made it so, or does the Bible just say God can’t do those things? Cause James 1:13 for instance merely says that he doesn’t tempt, not that he can’t tempt. Malachi 3:6 says that he doesn’t change, not that he can’t change. Numbers says that he doesn’t lie or not that he can’t. Ezekiel tells us that he doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked (which I doubt) but not that he can’t. And neither of the examples you provided says that God made it so. How much clearer must this be? Much clearer. There isn't a debate about God's omnipotence. He is omnipotent in essense, but limited in action by His own choices. If you answered my request and looked at Chris answer to you in the GPT again, you would see that there is a debate. You didn’t show me the passage that says God limited his own power. He merely listed a couple of things God doesn’t do. Whether he doesn’t do it because he can’t or simply doesn’t choose to is a completely different question. And whether he can’t do it because he chose to limit his own power is also an entirely different question. You're assuming that the system didn't work like it was supposed to. But I'm saying it did. He didn't change the rules because they did work. He knew how it would go, and it was worth it to Him knowing everything He knows. He still wants justice to be satisfied- so much so that He's willing to send Himself in to pay the penalty. I already pointed out why this makes no sense at all. If the system worked perfectly, if he knew how it would go, then he was not only willed to go to the cross, but wanted it. Who in his right mind would do such a thing? It’s illogical. Actually, I specifically said that the "Easter eggs" don't break the rules: I know you said that. The funny thing is that YOU decide when God breaks the rules and when he doesn’t. That’s totally random. But it gets better: I'm arguing that none of those examples you gave above involve God breaking any physical rules. May I highlight this for the record and ask you again: Is walking on the water or the resurrection in accordance with the natural laws? It's just that God has access to aspects of physicality that we don't. Just as an example, I'm arguing something like God operating multidimensionally. If multiple dimensions do exist, and God is by definition the "being greater than that which can be conceived" then he must be able to operate at the very least within them. Mere guesswork, totally unfalsifiable. Not confirmable either. IF other dimensions exist it doesn’t mean that you can walk on the water within the three dimensions that we know. It doesn’t mean that you can walk on the water at all. You are trying to escape into the sphere of wild speculation. I’m exposing you. I won’t let you get away with this without pointing out that it is illogical. He can do those things because He allowed Himself that right and privilege. But He must die for sin because He didn't allow Himself any out on that. And the Bible tells us this. You might wonder why in the heck God would do it that way, but this is not illogical. . If there is no motive, there is no case. May I ask you something? If you called me and asked me to help you in the garden and then I would cut off my leg, would that appear logical to you? Do you see a causal correlation between your call and my action? God going to the cross to satisfy justice for a wrong done against him makes exactly this much sense. In my book that’s simply illogical. The logic is simple: 1. An God who is omnipotent in essence can set things up any way He wants. 2. He chose some things He wouldn't (and therefore couldn't) do (forgive sins without payment of penalty) 3. And He chose some things He could do (perform miracles) I don’t understand why God would allow himself to perform miracles but not to miraculously forgive sins without going to the cross. First off, something can be beyond understanding and still not contradict logic. This whole issue of God choosing to set things up the way He did regarding atonement is a perfect example. You can't demonstrate a fallacy in logic about it. I already did. And human logic, as it is normally experienced, is limited by perception. There are things we know of that defy our perceptive logic but not abstract logic. Human logic is the only logic we have. Everything our logic can’t capture must be considered illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2008 16:43:48 GMT -8
My bad. I should have said "It's not that forgiveness requires bloodshed for no reason" as I then argued.
You can call them illogical if you want. Does that mean you feel you cannot believe them? I suspect this is a major difference between you and me. Perhaps it helps explain why I can have faith and you feel you cannot.
I think some acceptance of this is unavoidable for the theist:
Isaiah 55:
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
But it seems very logical to me that if there is a God, with qualities of existence far beyond anything we can imagine, then surely some things about him are going to appear illogical to us.
I'm interested in more responding on this thread, but gotta go for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Romance on Jun 5, 2009 16:23:35 GMT -8
I have an entirely different viewpoint about this. Well, maybe not entirely. We'll see. I'll try to explain it.
I agree with you, first of all, Moritz, there needs to be logical proof for anyone to accept any belief. Philosophy and religion may be confusing and take a lot of studying to understand, but if there is no logic, you should not accept it.
Now, to what you are saying. You brought up a VERY good point, that has to do with my viewpoint on this. Why wouldn't God JUST forgive us? It makes no logical sense for him to go through excruciating pain and emotional torture when he could JUST forgive us and not be stubborn about it. He just needed to get past his grudge and then He wouldn't have to suffer at all. It would be a lot easier.
After all, dying on a cross was one of the most excruciating forms of execution that man has ever invented. Why would He want to go through that? Was he masochistic?
What you don't understand is that when Jesus died on the cross, that was not when He forgave us, that's when He reconciled us to Him.
Jesus obviously forgave us long before the cross. John 3:16 says,"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son . . . . " You know the rest. It wasn't,"God loved the world after He gave His son." He loved it first and then He gave His son. He didn't have a burning hatred towards us that only blood could satiate.
So why did Jesus need to be sent to die on the cross then?
It's because evil beings CAN NOT stand being around perfect beings. Not because He couldn't stand us, it's because we wouldn't be able to stand HIM.
If you look at every single interaction in the Bible between Jesus and people who are possessed by demons, it's not Jesus shouting at them,"VILE DEMONS! I HATE YOU! I MUST PUNISH YOU FOR YOUR EVIL!" It's actually the opposite. It's always the demons, quaking in terror, screaming crazy rantings at him, while He calmly looks on.
We would absolutely HATE heaven if Jesus hadn't died on the cross. Sure, He would have forgiven us, but we would be completely disgusted and terrified of Him, everything He stood for, and everything that was in heaven.
Once you do one wrong thing, it's like losing your virginity. You can't go back. You're a non-virgin now and experienced in sex. Once you sin, you're a sinner now and are experienced in the ways of sin. You can no longer be called pure anymore.
Well, Jesus wanted us to be in heaven with Him someday because He loved us, so He had to find a way to make it comfortable for us. How would heaven be greater than hell if it tortured us to be there?
The only way to do that was to make us pure again. How could He do that, though? The answer is by giving us HIS purity.
For that reason, ONLY a wronged party could be sacrificed in order to fix it. He gave up His purity on the cross for us to have and be covered with, not just His body.
How did He do this? By being born a human being. When we are born, we inherit the downfall of our ancestors. Ever since Adam ate of that fruit tree, we've all gotten the knowledge of good and evil and therefore sinned and inherited his downfall. Well, Jesus became a human being so He could inherit it too, for all of us.
He took that inheritance and paid the consequence for receiving it, so that He could break the chain. Just like how we all are children of Adam and inherit His evil knowledge, when we become children of Jesus we inherit His goodness. It's like spiritual genetics.
Only the wronged and pure person could do it because only a wrong and pure person could break the chain. Jesus conquered the sin nature that had a hold on us that none of the rest of us could break the bondage of.
He died on the cross to conquer death. Remember He was ressurected in three days? "The wages of sin is death" (that a quote from the Bible, I can find it later if you want.) We all physically die because we became tainted once our souls began to die and mortal. He died on the cross and rose again to conquer all parts of sin, the death part included.
And He lived for 33 years to conquer the sin nature, He never sinned.
If Adam could make us all inherit a fallen state from being our ancestor, then Jesus could give us as an inheritance a pure, renewed nature, too, by being our spiritual father.
Then we could go to heaven and be reconciled with him without hating his guts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 5, 2009 16:46:08 GMT -8
You know, that's an excellent point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 5, 2009 16:52:19 GMT -8
Logic and proof are very different things, though, don't you think? I think that Christian belief is logical, but it cannot be "proven" if proven means without a logical doubt. I'd be curious your thoughts on this post: Proof or Evidence?I agree that "if there's no logic" something shouldn't be accepted. However, I think my argument above was concerned with the fact that there are always going to be things we cannot explain satisfactorily. That doesn't mean those things are illogical- just that some things are a-logical. We can't expect all our questions to be answered- whether Christian or atheist, because we are finite beings. |
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Romance on Jun 6, 2009 12:17:23 GMT -8
Yea, I agree with you. Sorry, bad choice of words there.
And I'm reading that thread right now and I think I will be replying to it as well.
|
|
