payment for our sins???

[Grega]

This is from my blog.


Why Jesus had to die for our sins


The need for Jesus to offer Himself as a sacrifice ...(snip)

Well thanks for that but I draw a number of inferences about your particular God from that blog and you wouldn't want to hear them...I have nothing more to say on this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems a rather pointless exercise...why make letting people into heaven such a grizzly and convoluted exercise when he could say...assume their sins have been covered in its blood and plet them proceed merrily onwards?

As the crime, so the remedy ---

Make a chain: for the land is full of bloody crimes, and the city is full of violence.

 

[Grega]

As the crime, so the remedy ---

???how does this relate to the point you quoted me on...my head hurts

Care to try again AV1611VET?

 

[AV1611VET]

???how does this relate to the point you quoted me on...my head hurts

Care to try again AV1611VET?

Sure --- you're approaching this from a natural perspective, and refusing to add the ingredient of the spiritual, and the result is foolishness.

As Paul puts it ---

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You (and others) are a living example of the veracity of this principle.

 

[Grega]

Sure --- you're approaching this from a natural perspective, and refusing to add the ingredient of the spiritual, and the result is foolishness.

As Paul puts it ---You (and others) are a living example of the veracity of this principle.

See...I don't necessarily reject the notion of the spiritual, How could I be justified to outright reject it?...What I do reject (so far) is your notion of that which is spiritual...this whole Jesus dying on the cross for us thing doesn't fit with any *consistent* notions of a god that I can conjure up...with respect to your reply to KC it is not so much that I'm not trying to understand, more that in general, the responses I hear paint your god as having 'human' characteristics and weaknesses

 

[AV1611VET]

See...I don't necessarily reject the notion of the spiritual, How could I be justified to outright reject it?...What I do reject (so far) is your notion of that which is spiritual...this whole Jesus dying on the cross for us thing doesn't fit with any *consistent* notions of a god that I can conjure up...with respect to your reply to KC it is not so much that I'm not trying to understand, more that in general, the responses I hear paint your god as having 'human' characteristics and weaknesses

You might call Him weak, but when the devil tries so hard to keep God's plans from coming to fruition, God's strength shows through. If Satan could stop just one prophecy from coming to pass, He could bring God down with His own words; but the devil can't. God is omnipotent --- not weak.

 

[Grega]

You might call Him weak, but when the devil tries so hard to keep God's plans from coming to fruition, God's strength shows through. If Satan could stop just one prophecy from coming to pass, He could bring God down with His own words; but the devil can't. God is omnipotent --- not weak.

I'm tempted to ask why doesn't/didn't your god just get rid of this Satan fellow, make it look like an accident and so on (you know what I mean)...but this isn't the right thread for it

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm tempted to ask why doesn't/didn't your god just get rid of this Satan fellow, make it look like an accident and so on (you know what I mean)...but this isn't the right thread for it

There would be plenty more fallen angels who would be more than willing to take his place.

 

[aiki]

Because literally taking ones eye for an eye/ or life for a life is a neanderthal and primitive action that surrenders completely to emotion at the expense of thinking things through rationally

"Neanderthal" and "primitive"? Upon what objective basis do you make this characterization? The "eye for an eye" form of justice doesn't necessarily always involve "complete surrender to emotion at the expense of rational thought."

; furthermore if this 'retribution' is handed out to anyone who isn't a complete loner then you just end up with the family/friends/whoeverelse of those who had their eyes removed looking to give the 'eye-taker' their own 'retribution'.

Again, not necessarily. If it is understood within the society that taking another's life is punished by one's life being taken, it is not likely that family and/or friends of a murderer would be itching to get revenge when that murderer is punished. This is the difference between justice and revenge. The latter is an established form of societal law; the other is merely personal revenge. If my brother murdered someone and was executed for doing so, I would not be looking to revenge my brother's death. His execution would be the result of the process of law exerted upon his murderous action.

With respect to the second question, I'm no expert on the subject but I say a society has evolved when its collective (where collective encompasses age/race/gender/and so on...) response to adversity is more sophisticated/ productive than those of our 2000 year old ancestors.

This is kinda' vague. What does "sophisticated" mean, exactly? More complicated? More attentive to subtle nuances of situation? And what does "productive" mean? What may seem productive to one person may seem quite the opposite to another. What is regarded as "productive" always has something to do with what is valued. If I value reading, for instance, I would regard an afternoon spent with a good book as a highly productive span of time. But to one who doesn't value reading, an afternoon of reading may seem like a tremendous waste of time. "Productive", then, is a term which varies widely from person to person. You seem to equate "productive" and "sophisticated" with the simple passage of time when you compare present society to that of 2000 years ago. We aren't an improved society merely because time has passed, however. What differences you may observe between then and now are related to values rather than place in time.

So far I haven't seen sufficient justification for the existence of any type of god let alone yours and so I don't accept this statement on the basis that with my present understanding I would say I have good reason to argue my standards are better than your god's

I'm sure the Nazis felt that there was "insufficient justification" for the resistance they encountered when they tried to take over the world. Of course, this doesn't mean there wasn't good justification for opposing Nazism; it just means the Nazis didn't accept it. I'm sure the Nazis believed their Aryan standard was better than any other. After all, they gave their lives in defense and advancement of that standard. Certainly, they would have believed they had a superior argument in support of their views.

Probably the most attrocious sin that I have committed up to date is that which may have occured in my head at some point (whole different subject I want to start that one is) why does there exist such a 'terrible cost'? who set the price and why?

There exists such a terrible cost (the life of God's Son) because that was what the Law of Sin and Death, ordained by God, demanded. God did not exempt Himself from His own law.

The bit that leapt out at me in this response was the word 'sacrifice'...firstly your god has supposedly sacrificed itself to itself, this strikes me as an absurd notion; but more importantly why should a god need sacrifices???

I can't help what you may or may not find absurd. Given how little even the most brilliant person knows of all the information contained in the Universe, I find your assertion that there is no God absurd. So what?

Why does the Universe function under the laws that it does? Why atoms and not something else? Why not green skies instead of blue? Why not ten moons instead of one revolving around our planet? To all of these kinds of questions the answer for the Christian is fundamentally the same: This is the way God decided it would be. So, too, God ordained that Sin would require a blood sacrifice as payment for it. Like gravity, its just the way it is.

Hmm...sorry for the misunderstanding there, wasn't asking you to tie your hands behind your back more I was asking that though the statement 'God is perfect' may well be a basis for your current worldview, you would simply refrain from making that point in your response given that I don't accept it to be true.

Just because you don't accept this belief shouldn't preclude its use in argument. You are tying a Christian's hands to some degree when you limit the conversation in this area.

Peace.

 

[solarwave]

Heaven is perfect, so if you have sinned and go to heaven then you make it imperfect. Something not perfect cannot be in a perfect place and must go somewhere else, that we call Hell/ separation from God.
So presumably, the way in which we are made perfect is by some form of sacrifice (in our case and those born after Jesus), Jesus's blood...Firstly how does this make us perfect/fit to enter heaven, and secondly is this the only way our 'perfection' can be achieved? If so what obstacle prevents your God from devising a different less primitive method of making us perfect like say...giving some of us a good telling off then letting it be?

Maybe before Jesus people were saved by Jesus' sacrifice, but lets not go into that. We keep going round in circles, but Ill explain again lol. God is just, so sins must be paid for, we cant go to heaven with sin since heaven is perfect, Jesus is the perfect sacrifice, as at His death the whole worlds sin is put on Him instead of us, so we can be forgiven. Telling us off doesn't take away sin, it just means we are less likely to do it again.

It means that Jesus was God in human form. He was a human. He was God.
From this I infer that I am not fully human then...since if I was fully human then your previous statement implies fully god is an attribute possessed by some who are fully human, but those who weren't fully god would be less fully a human than those who were (since they don't possess the attribute of being fully god aswell, something that someone more human than them could possess)...and since it it is evident that I am not in any way a god I draw my conclusion that I am not actually fully human...so what else am I? (so as to distinguish myself from those who are fully human?)

If you want to sidestep that bit above...please tell me what it actually means to be fully human AND fully god?

Yh ill side step tht cos your just trying to find problems where there are none there lol. I said fully human and fully God just to make sure that u knew tht He's not like a half man half God like say Hercules. Fully human= His life was hard work and lead normally like a humans, fully God= He was divine inside, but did not use that divinity.

Ok, sins, dont HAVE to be paid for. But if they are not you go to hell, for reasons given before. To be forgiven sins MUST be paid for, since God is just.
and with respect to my first response above, your god cannot change these rules?

No, unless you went against justice or make God not just it could not change. I believe.

Well I dont believe in young earth, but the story is still true symbolically. What it means is still true, so when talking about its consequences, you can talk about it as if true. Its not the fact that eating an apple is very bad (though it was going directly against what God said), its the fact that it may be a 'little' sin, but it still is a sin. A piece of paper with a black line on it can be called imperfect just as much as a piece of paper with lots of lines on it.
see, all I can see on a local (my) level is that a trivial little sin has such profound consequences...and I cannot see why this should be true

The consequence is that you cannot go to heaven (as explained) because you have sinned, if its a little sin makes no difference. That is why sin I so bad, if u understand that it helps understand other things.

If it was forced on Jesus I would see your point, but it was His choice. How can you say it was wrong for Jesus to choose to die that way, if it was His choice? Yes it isn't nice, but that is life, Jesus wasn't given an easy life, but was able to know what the hardest lives of humans are like because He experienced it Himself.
But I still have to be grateful that Jesus got involved with such an act...and I find the act to be repulsive, therefore I'm not grateful...furthermore assuming that you have addressed one of my points above I'd say that Jesus (being a god and all) didn't have it quite so bad as some people did

Jesus was God but didnt use His God powers. Its like swimming the english channel with a power boat next to you. Jesus had the option to use the power boat (His divinity) but didnt and did it the human way on His own strength.

As I said before. God is just so for there to be forgiveness a price must be paid for wrong done. Justice is getting what you deserve, be that good or bad. By Gods mercy(not getting what we do deserve) Jesus paid it.
But that is a human concept...I see no reason why it should be a godly concept

Er?

 

[DerSchweik]

Mod Hat On

A number of posts in this thread have been removed for engaging in off-topic "side-bar" discussions/debates that did not involve the OP.

Exploring Christianity is a forum where non-Christians may post threads seeking answers from Christians about questions they have with Christianity, the Christian faith, etc.

Members who respond to these threads MUST respond to the OP. If you have issues or disagreements with comments others have made - TAKE IT OFF LINE. Posts that do not respond to the OP, that do not involve the OP in their own thread or otherwise ignore the OP will be removed as "off-topic" to the thread.

ALL members please read the Forum Specific Guidelines before posting in Exploring Christianity. If you have any questions about posting here, PM me or others on Ministry staff.

Please remember as well that Ministry is a NO DEBATE AREA.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Catherineanne]

It should be noted that this question is asked by one who does not accept (so far) the proposition that God's actions (if such an entity exists) are (or even should be) perfect and so I would ask that you avoid this kind of response...more I'm asking you to 'sell' this concept to a disinterested buyer! (so to speak)

I am not interested in selling anything, but I will offer an alternative explanation, so that you can see that it is possible to move on in 2,000 years.

There is something called the Unequal Exchange, to explain the Incarnation without recourse to all that talk of sin and punishment. In essence we have a God who is immortal and perfect, who creates a world that is finite and contains imperfection. He creates mankind out of love, because he delights in creation, and in relationship.

(I know you said not to mention perfection, but quite frankly, who would want a God of imperfection? )

But what he has not created is any earthly immortal creature, who can share eternity with him. So in order to allow us to access immortality, he comes to share our mortality first. He becomes man, and at the moment when he assumes human life, that presupposes that he will one day die. So the Incarnation is important from the first moment of Christ's conception to the moment of his death; it is all equally valid and equally important. He shows us how a perfect man would live, how he would speak and act, and what he would do. He gives us the perfect example for our lives, and then he lays down his life, willingly.

We are so used to this idea that we forget how radical it is. The Moslems have not lost sight of this radicalism; they cannot get their heads around God dying, and yet we accept it without thinking every day of our lives.

God became man, then laid down his life for us. Then he says, all you have to do in order to share in my immortality is to believe in my Son, who died for you. When we choose to do so, we become co-heirs with Christ, and we inherit eternal life. Not because of anything we are or do, but because of who Christ is.

This has really very little, if anything, to do with sin, everything to do with relationship and love. The parallel is our own lives with our parents or children. A relationship built on fear, punishment and constant rebuke is not healthy, but seriously dysfunctional. Some Christians have this same dysfunctional relationship with God, because they do not know anything else. But it is not who God really is.

Try that one for size. But whether you buy or not is up to you.

 

[KCDAD]

Then he says, all you have to do in order to share in my immortality is to believe in my Son, who died for you. When we choose to do so, we become co-heirs with Christ, and we inherit eternal life. Not because of anything we are or do, but because of who Christ is.

I just want to clarify something. Do you really mean to say that all it takes is belief "in my Son"? What exactly do you mean by "belief in" someone?
Nothing is required from us like feed the hungry or clothe the naked, visit the sick or comfort the afflicted? It is all intellectual assent to some set of statements?

 

[Catherineanne]

I just want to clarify something. Do you really mean to say that all it takes is belief "in my Son"? What exactly do you mean by "belief in" someone?

Belief is not just intellectual assent; it requires heart, mind, soul and strength.

After such belief, there are no conditions to entry to the Kingdom.

Nothing is required from us like feed the hungry or clothe the naked, visit the sick or comfort the afflicted? It is all intellectual assent to some set of statements?

None of these are requirements. They are the result of the work of the Spirit within us.

 

[KCDAD]

Belief is not just intellectual assent; it requires heart, mind, soul and strength.

After such belief, there are no conditions to entry to the Kingdom.



None of these are requirements. They are the result of the work of the Spirit within us.

You read a different Bible than I do.

Micah 6:8.
John 15:14

 

[solarwave]

You read a different Bible than I do.

Micah 6:8.
John 15:14

I dont agree with Catherineanne on the whole 'Jesus had nothing to do with sin' thing, because it is spelled out in the bible that it does.

But I think she has a good point that ''None of these are requirements. They are the result of the work of the Spirit within us.'' Salvation is not by works but by faith, not by who we are or what we have done, by because of who Jesus is and what He has done. You cant earn salvation by good deeds. If someone gave their life to Christ on their death bed and did no good works at all, they would go to heaven. Jesus' death is enough.

True though that if you are a friend of Jesus faith will be played out in action, making John 15:14 true.

 

[Rowan]

To also start from the Incarnation (which is a good place to start) as Catherinneanne did:

As stated before, Jesus is fully man and fully God. In the Incarnation, He united our fallen nature to the heavenly. In the Crucifixion, He put our old nature to death--the curse was lifted, death has lost its sting. At the Resurrection, He became the first of us to rise from the dead with our redeemed nature.

We choose to be redeemed as we are baptized: putting to death the old nature, and living to God. Every day we are called to do this through repentance and living in the law of liberty and love. This is how we are becoming free from the bondage of sin.

In this way, too, Christ died for our sins.

 

[Catherineanne]

You read a different Bible than I do.

Micah 6:8.
John 15:14

What is the relevance of this point to the OP? It is his point I was addressing in my description of the Unequal Exchange.

 

[Catherineanne]

I dont agree with Catherineanne on the whole 'Jesus had nothing to do with sin' thing, because it is spelled out in the bible that it does.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I described the Incarnation, and God's perspective on it, from the point of view of the Unequal Exchange. I did not say that Our Lord had nothing to do with sin, only that from this viewpoint it is not central to the Incarnation, or the reason for his life and death.

The parallel is with our own children. If our relationship is about us constantly looking at what they do wrong, and correcting them, with threats of punishment if they fail to achieve our version of perfection, it will be highly dysfunctional, and probably abusive too. What our children do wrong is the least important part of our relationship with them. What matters is who they are, and who we are; and mostly who we are as parents is enablers to them becoming all that they have the potential to be; allowing them to grow and mature into wonderful adults. And, with the Unequal Exchange, our relationship with God is exactly this; he says 'I am who I am', and he wants us to learn to say the same thing.

 

[KCDAD]

For Catherineanne: Thank you for clarifying your point, except you have stirred another question in me: If "I am who I am" is what we are to be able to announce, what is the deal with sin, and crime and deviance.... "I'm a drug dealer", "I'm a bully", "I am a sex addict"... are you saying that all God wants is for us to be what we are?

OK. I agree. But... What Are We?
Dust?
Children of God?
A little less than angels?
Animals?
Sinners?

Also, would you address the point of the story Jesus told about the sheep and the goats? Matthew 25: 34
Why are some welcomed into the kingdom and others rejected?
What did the "Good" Samaritan believe (with his heart, mind, soul and strength)? Luke 10: 25-37