|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
With due respect Josephine the NT definition of a "saint" is one who has responded to the call of God and has thereby become separated from the world to God.
With due respect, shamwari, words can have more than one meaning. I wasn't telling Johnny S "the NT definition" of a saint. I was telling him what I meant by the word when I used it in my earlier post.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
OK
I understand that
But for any discussion to proceed words must have some basic meaning apart from "what I mean when I use the word".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(Apologies, RL intervened and I'm catching up so (x-posting aside) this will be my fourth in a row.)
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Ok. I'll put my answer very very simply this time. Jesus did not say anything about remaking the world or upsetting the status quo. He did not condemn any number of evils ingrained into society then (poverty, slavery.) He accepted it as it was. We've moved past the Romans.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Jesus didn't upset the status quo? He wasn't an apocalyptic preacher speaking about the coming kingdom of God? Have you read a gospel?
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.
quote:
I know about the Opium wars. Instead of countries fighting over it in Asia now people are now abused and killed in cities all over the world. Progress?
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?
quote:
That's right, because saying advances in technology have (alongside bringing lots of good) also increased our opportunities to do harm - is exactly my point. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And by and large we use them to do good.
quote:
So why are suicides increasing in lots of these countries where life is supposedly so much better now? Like Australia, where I live.
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.
quote:
What does this prove? People did really horrible things to one another back then and they still do now.
So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?
quote:
This is now getting absurd. I never brought in this assumption about perfection - you were the one who attacked PSA with regards to heaven. Apparently any God who just a angry tyrant forcing people to do stuff is unworthy.
This is what you said earlier ...
Assuming that God is meant to be perfect, yes. Assuming that he's fallible like the rest of us and the Cross was his act of repentance to man rather than the other way around then that's fine. God ceases to be a monster and merely becomes someone who fucked up spectacularly and is endeavouring to atone for his mistakes - that I can respect.
As I said earlier, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent - choose two at most.
quote:
It was this that I was replying to. You were the one who came up with the notion that justice is a protection against imperfections.
You can't have it both ways - if you concede that coercion is necessary to make people behave better on earth why is it unworthy of God?
Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.
And because God's punishment protects precisely no one. It is after the event and after the possibility of subsequent events has finished. The justice system is part of a wide array of feedback loops protecting people - something that your God is outside.
Is your God perfect?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Wikipedia on NPD
From Wikipedia: quote:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder... as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."
The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. [It] is closely linked to self-centeredness.
That's interesting and something I actually know a little bit about!
I've studied NPD in counselling training and at one point I was on the receiving end of someone displaying its characteristics.
I suppose Piper would argue that God is an exception to the rule because he is worth being 'self-absorbed' in, and Piper would also say God's own fullness does not prevent his glory overflowing to others.
Whether the whole thing is just a projection of some sort of collective NPD by PSAers (a conclusion it's certainly tempting to draw from my experience, but probably much too hasty a one) onto God is hard to tell.
On a brief personal note, I have to have some minor surgery tomorrow. Hopefully it's same-day stuff and I'll be back posting here very soon, but if not it's not simply because I'm being rude!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
On a brief personal note, I have to have some minor surgery tomorrow. Hopefully it's same-day stuff and I'll be back posting here very soon, but if not it's not simply because I'm being rude!
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
OK
I understand that
But for any discussion to proceed words must have some basic meaning apart from "what I mean when I use the word".
I hardly think the way I was using it was obscure or unintelligible. In fact, my usage was pretty darned close to its basic meaning, quite apart from "what I mean when I use the word."
Dictionary.com has, as its first definition of saint, "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life" and as its second, "a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence."
Merriam-Webster has as its first definition of saint, "one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness" and as its fourth entry, "one eminent for piety or virtue."
If you want to restrict the meaning of "saint" to what you consider to be the NT meaning of the word, feel free. Just don't expect everyone else to go along with you.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bible:
1 Samuel 2:9 He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness. "It is not by strength that one prevails;
2 Chronicles 6:41 "Now arise, O LORD God, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, may your saints rejoice in your goodness.
Psalm 16:3 As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight.
Psalm 30:4 Sing to the LORD, you saints of his; praise his holy name.
Psalm 31:23 Love the LORD, all his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful, but the proud he pays back in full.
Psalm 34:9 Fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing.
Psalm 52:9 I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence of your saints.
Psalm 79:2 They have given the dead bodies of your servants as food to the birds of the air, the flesh of your saints to the beasts of the earth.
Psalm 85:8 I will listen to what God the LORD will say; he promises peace to his people, his saints— but let them not return to folly.
Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
Psalm 132:9 May your priests be clothed with righteousness; may your saints sing for joy."
Psalm 132:16 I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints will ever sing for joy.
Psalm 145:10 All you have made will praise you, O LORD; your saints will extol you.
Psalm 148:14 He has raised up for his people a horn, the praise of all his saints, of Israel, the people close to his heart. Praise the LORD.
Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD. Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the saints.
Psalm 149:5 Let the saints rejoice in this honor and sing for joy on their beds.
Psalm 149:9 to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of all his saints. Praise the LORD.
Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'
Daniel 7:21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them,
Daniel 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
Daniel 7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.
Daniel 7:27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'
Daniel 8:12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
Acts 9:13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.
Acts 9:32 [ Aeneas and Dorcas ] As Peter traveled about the country, he went to visit the saints in Lydda.
Acts 26:10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.
Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
Romans 15:25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.
Romans 15:26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
Romans 15:31 Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there,
Romans 16:2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.
Romans 16:15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.
1 Corinthians 6:1 [ Lawsuits Among Believers ] If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,
1 Corinthians 16:15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers,
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:
2 Corinthians 8:4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints.
2 Corinthians 9:1 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the saints.
2 Corinthians 13:13 All the saints send their greetings.
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 1:15 [ Thanksgiving and Prayer ] For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
Ephesians 3:18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,
Ephesians 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
Philippians 4:21 [ Final Greetings ] Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings.
Philippians 4:22 All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar's household.
Colossians 1:4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints—
Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.
1 Timothy 5:10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
Philemon 1:5 because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.
Philemon 1:7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.
Jude 1:3 [ The sin and doom of Godless men ] Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
Revelation 8:3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.
Revelation 8:4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand.
Revelation 11:18 The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Revelation 13:7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
Revelation 13:10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
Revelation 14:12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.
Revelation 16:6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve."
Revelation 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.' "
Revelation 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Revelation 19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
Saints means God's people. Not some lesser decreasing circle.
[ 14. July 2010, 21:51: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.
He was so successful that he got himself killed for it.
quote:
I know about the Opium wars. Instead of countries fighting over it in Asia now people are now abused and killed in cities all over the world. Progress?
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?
quote:
That's right, because saying advances in technology have (alongside bringing lots of good) also increased our opportunities to do harm - is exactly my point.
And by and large we use them to do good.
quote:
So why are suicides increasing in lots of these countries where life is supposedly so much better now? Like Australia, where I live.
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.
quote:
The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?
2-4 million people are trafficked every year (src)
quote:
quote:
You can't have it both ways - if you concede that coercion is necessary to make people behave better on earth why is it unworthy of God?
Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.
So you're saying that if God is perfect, he'll somehow be able to make us all behave nicely all the time of our own free will, without being robots? Sorry, that doesn't wash. God may be perfect and omnipotent but that doesn't give him the ability to do the logically impossible like make people behave how he likes when he doesn't control their behaviour.
In fact, God is doing precisely what you say. However, it means that creation is a two stage process and the cross is central to that process.
[ 14. July 2010, 23:28: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Ah sheesh, I've really botched the code there. I shouldn't post while tired. Could a kindlly host just delete that post please?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Yet again, when I manage to get back to this thread there has been a lot of activity.
Apologies for this inevitable litany of multi-posts.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course. He was pointing to the idea of God as father. Indeed, as daddy. One's relationship with a loving father is quite different from one's relationship with a distant (and tyrannical) king.
Does your bible have some kind of footnote explaining that when Jesus says father he means father but when he says king he means father?
Or alternatively he used more than one analogy and we need to fit them all together.
God is both my father and my king.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
(I don't know why I'm getting into this...)
PSA is not pretty and kind of icky to really think about.
BUT, why else did Jesus allow himself to be crucified? I haven't heard anything but PSA actually answer that question for me.
Jesus could have just walked out of the trial, or just disappear, or just not go to Jerusalem if it was that Jesus was crucified because he was simply arrested.
If it was to prove that Jesus was God, I'm still stuck thinking that there were plenty of other ways besides resurrection.
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The saints are the people who have achieved theosis. The holy ones, the people who, when you see them, you know that you're seeing more than just them; you're seeing God in them and through them.
I'm sorry that this turned into an argument over 'Saints' - that wasn't my intention.
However, do you notice that you have answered my question by simply giving another synonym for saints?
My question was - how do you recognise people who have achieved theosis when you meet them or read of them? (Is it a subjective feeling, "I just know", or do you look for certain qualities? If the latter then where do you get this definition from and how do you know how much of a quality is enough for theosis?)
[ 15. July 2010, 00:21: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.
From the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom:
quote:
He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted his flesh!
And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed: "Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions".
It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered heaven!
It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that slept.
To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
If Dinghy Sailor was defeated by the code, I'll have a try:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.
No he wasn't. Herod was a secular authority. Indeed all talk of God as king was highly seditious. What inscription did Pilate put on the cross?
And when we get to the book of Revelation Rome and the Emperor are specifically targetted. However late you date Revelation Christianity was still a minority taking very dangerous pot-shots.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?
You're doing it again. My point is that people were good and bad then and they still are now. No change.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.
Statistical variation? Do you really believe this stuff or are you just winding me up?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?
Small, who said anything about small? The whole point of it being illegal is that it is harder to trace and quantify, but even with that it is certainly not small.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Assuming that God is meant to be perfect, yes. Assuming that he's fallible like the rest of us and the Cross was his act of repentance to man rather than the other way around then that's fine. God ceases to be a monster and merely becomes someone who fucked up spectacularly and is endeavouring to atone for his mistakes - that I can respect.
As I said earlier, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent - choose two at most.
You're bring up your definition of perfection again. One I never used.
Let's get this straight. You fully admit that the only way we've seen any progress is through coercion. Parliament didn't pass a bill saying that we need to be nice to one another, it made slavery illegal and it had the authority to back it up.
So, based on the evidence of human history you have no evidence at all, not slight evidence, none, that humans will get better without coercion. But you still have the notion that God should be able to do it differently because of your definition of perfection. Why? What reason do you have for saying God can't act this way?
Your definition of perfection seems to be a square-circle.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.
And because God's punishment protects precisely no one. It is after the event and after the possibility of subsequent events has finished. The justice system is part of a wide array of feedback loops protecting people - something that your God is outside.
Is your God perfect?
Overall you sound rather like a re-hash of Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”
I have to agree with Russell here. It is why I can't stomach liberal Christianity.
Let's go back to your statistical variation earlier. Let's assume for a moment that I accept your premise that humans are getting morally better on their own. (You may have noticed that I don't agree but let's just assume it for now.) Life is still a massive lottery. Billions of people live with the daily reality of starvation, disease, rape, war ... and worse. Their fate is a simple lottery of their birth. To me they are people. To you they are statistics. What comfort to them is it if we do get a bit better in the next thousand years?
If I am to believe in God at all in this world then there has to be another factor that Russell had not considered - and I think that it is justice. God is loving, powerful and just.
That's the God I believe in. The God you are describing stands at the gates of Auschwitz and just shrugs his shoulders while adding a few more data entries to his statistics.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, do you notice that you have answered my question by simply giving another synonym for saints?
Yes -- you asked for a definition. I gave you a definition. If you wanted to know how I recognize saints, you should have asked that.
The way you recognize saints is the same way you recognize people from any other group -- you spend time with them and get to know them. I started with the people who have been glorified as saints by the Orthodox Church. As I read their lives, and asked for their prayers, and spent time with them, I got to know some of them.
And once you get to know people in a group, it's easier to recognize other people in that same group. Like Sunday -- we had a bunch of friends over. Two of them had been to the same university, several decades apart. They had never met each other, but they recognized each other as Aggies right away.
It's the same thing with the saints. The more time you've spent with them, the more time you've spent around holiness and love, the easier it is to recognize when you encounter it again.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Yes -- you asked for a definition. I gave you a definition. If you wanted to know how I recognize saints, you should have asked that.
Okay, I obviously wasn't clear enough when I said this earlier:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
Who gets to define who fits in the 'Saint' category?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The way you recognize saints is the same way you recognize people from any other group -- you spend time with them and get to know them. I started with the people who have been glorified as saints by the Orthodox Church. As I read their lives, and asked for their prayers, and spent time with them, I got to know some of them.
Thanks, this is what I was after. So you start with people given the official 'Saint' (TM) by the Orthodox church and work backwards from there? I can understand that.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Josephine, why did Jesus have to die to destroy death? God is omnipotent, isn't he? Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and made death go away?
I can't think of any scriptures that explain that well. (Yeah, I'm going back to the Bible...)
It seems to me that either (1) it just is, accept it on faith or (2) death is a result of the Fall (Adam's Sin) and Jesus's death reversed that.
The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
BUT, why else did Jesus allow himself to be crucified? I haven't heard anything but PSA actually answer that question for me.
Because if he ran away, he wouldn't have been standing up to evil and injustice.
He proclaimed the Kingdom in the most powerful way he could by not running away.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Josephine, why did Jesus have to die to destroy death? God is omnipotent, isn't he? Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and made death go away?
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by omnipotent. There are certainly things that God can't do -- like making a square circle. And there are things that he chooses not to do -- like making us into puppets. He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.
Could he? I don't know.
quote:
It seems to me that either (1) it just is, accept it on faith or (2) death is a result of the Fall (Adam's Sin) and Jesus's death reversed that.
Number 2. Death is a result of the fall, and Jesus's death reversed it.
quote:
The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.
No, it doesn't get us to PSA. There's no P and there's no S. We were trapped by death, with no way to escape, and we needed someone to rescue us. And the way God chose to do that was to give himself over to death -- not as a substitute for us, mind you, but for us, because he knew that if he did that, he could destroy death from the inside.
For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
That's what Jesus did -- he threw himself into death. And when death swallowed him, it got a meal it couldn't digest. It was ripped apart from the inside, and can no longer hold any of us.
So that's why Jesus died. Your other question -- did God have to do it that way? I don't know. I just know this is the way he did it. For whatever reason, it was the way he chose to do it. Whether there was another way, I can't say. But I suspect that this is the way it had to be.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.
Could he? I don't know.
So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)
quote:
quote:
The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.
No, it doesn't get us to PSA. There's no P and there's no S. We were trapped by death, with no way to escape, and we needed someone to rescue us. And the way God chose to do that was to give himself over to death -- not as a substitute for us, mind you, but for us, because he knew that if he did that, he could destroy death from the inside.
For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.
But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.
quote:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
That's what Jesus did -- he threw himself into death. And when death swallowed him, it got a meal it couldn't digest. It was ripped apart from the inside, and can no longer hold any of us.
In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because if he ran away, he wouldn't have been standing up to evil and injustice.
He proclaimed the Kingdom in the most powerful way he could by not running away.
And by living and preaching and healing for more years wouldn't have proclaimed the Kingdom??
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.
Could he? I don't know.
So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)
I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.
quote:
quote:
For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.
But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.
Okay, I didn't understand that at all. Are you saying that God wanted to kill Jesus, instead of us, and that's why Jesus came, so God could kill him? But if that's the case, then Jesus wasn't a substitute for us, but rather he was the victim that God chose. But I don't think that's what you mean.
And when you say, "If he didn't," do you mean, "If he didn't die for us?" I'm reasonably sure we both think that he did die for us.
So I'm confused. Could you try again?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing if you believe that God created the world in the first place. By 'natural' you then mean 'according to the pattern that God imposed onto the world by his authority.'
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.
Indeed, John Piper uses a very similar analogy in support of PSA.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The main problem with "kiss the son" is that the word translated "son" is "bar". The normal Hebrew word for son is "ben". "Bar" is Aramaic. "Bar" as "son" occurs only in Ezra, Daniel, (both post-exilic) once in Proverbs 31 (believed by many to be a codicil), and this single Psalm. "Ben" as "son" occurs in the Psalms 98 times.
Further, there is no marker for a direct object (usually "et" but "l" for the verb "kiss"), making it more likely to be an adverb ("b[a]r" as an adverb means "purely" or "sincerely"). This too is a problem, although much less of one.
The LXX renders it "receive instruction"
Okay, I've had a few minutes to read up on this now.
MT (as in the Hebrew text, not as in you) - as you have noted the aramaic expression is definitely used to mean son in Proverbs 31: 2 (I'm not sure there is much evidence of it being a codicil there other than wanting to undermine a Christian reading of Psalm 2). I think "kiss the Son" is a pretty good translation of the MT.
LXX - this is much more problematic. However, since the rest of the Psalm uses 'Son' language and has been interpreted by both Jews and Christians as Messianic I think you have to do more work than just pointing to it - which translation is correct? MT or LXX?
Most textual critical techniques would point to the MT since it is a lot easier to see how a translator would move from a metaphor (kiss the Son) to explaining it's meaning (accept discipline from the Son) than the other way round.
Indeed I'd go further to say that to translate it "receive instruction" is deliberately misleading if aware of the MT. It is clear in the LXX that one we are to receive instruction from is 'the Son' and (if anyone is aware about the translation debate) to put it that way seems to intentionally draw the reader away from that fact.
In short there is no such thing as a neutral translation. I'd have to say that how you render Psalm 2: 12 reveals more about your preconceptions than about your translating skills whichever option you go for.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.
Indeed, John Piper uses a very similar analogy in support of PSA.
You know, I heard a story on NPR some time ago, about what happens when people from North Korea and South Korea visit each other. The two countries were so isolated from each other that their languages have diverged. They said that people will find that they're speaking what seems to be the same language, but they won't be able to understand each other.
I think I know how they felt.
It seems to me that you and Pata and Johnny S are all taking things that, to me, are clearly different, and insisting that they're the same thing.
Johnny says that punishment and natural consequences are the same thing. But, to me, it's obvious that they're not! Natural consequences are what happens after you do something if no one intervenes. Punishment is an intervention. It is an intentionally aversive consequence that someone in power or authority imposes in response to unwanted behavior. If there is no one imposing the consequence, if it's just a matter of what happens because of the way creation works, then it's not a punishment.
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution. To me, again, it's obvious that they're not the same thing at all. If you have a recipe that calls for sour cream, you could substitute plain yogurt for the sour cream and see how it turns out. If you have an academic schedule that calls for so many hours of math, you can substitute formal logic for the math. You can do these substitutions because you had a recipe or a rulebook that called for one thing, and you put another thing in its place.
That's what substitution is. But if you're making chicken soup, you didn't replace beef with chicken. You just used chicken. You could have used beef, but using one thing instead of another thing isn't the same thing as substituting one thing for another thing.
And the man who threw himself in front of the car to save the child didn't substitute the child's life for his. There was no "life" slot that he was giving up so the child could fill it; there was no "death" slot that he was taking so that the child wouldn't have to. There was no substitution at all.
I don't know why I see differences that you don't see. Whyever it happens, it sure makes communication difficult.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think the idea that an aramaic word was used --hapax in the psalms, and ungrammatically at that-- in psalm 2 is ludicrous. I think you should investigate more about Proverbs 31 before you dismiss it as having anything to do with Psalm 2. That's a kneejerk reaction. The fact that the word is so rare in the OT, and the vast bulk of the uses are in post-exilic books, should give pause for thought. That the Vulgate also differs from the MT indicates there was a hebrew text extant in Jerome's day that had the LXX reading. No matter how you slice it, it's a troublesome verse. Saying all translations indicate preconceptions is true but wide of the mark. Some translations really are better than others. (None are perfect.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution.
Hey, my day job depends on people not understanding each other ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
However, here, I didn't say anything of the sort*. I merely pointed out that your illustration was a lot like one John Piper uses, and he is a fan of PSA. That might mean you have thought this example through more than him, or it might be that your example (which, after all, is only an illustration) includes the idea of substitution as well as that of sacrifice.
*Just to make things clear again, I'm not sure what I think about PSA; it's just that it happens to be the worked-out doctrine of what went on at the cross I'm the most familiar with. Reporting and reformulating its ideas here is helping me to clarify my thinking, but I'm not defending it to the hilt.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Josephine: quote:
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution.
And clearly it's not, or the World Cup would have been a very different event. Probably with fewer red cards... Sorry... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I have made a new thread in Keryg about the "kiss the son" verse so we needn't keep dragging out the tangent here. With apologies for all for creating the tangent in the first place. Those interested, please join us there to chew over this particularly meaty bone.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing if you believe that God created the world in the first place. By 'natural' you then mean 'according to the pattern that God imposed onto the world by his authority.'
Which is fine, in and of itself. But you then can't bring in concepts of volitional punishment and pretend that you're talking about the same thing. Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Johnny says that punishment and natural consequences are the same thing. But, to me, it's obvious that they're not! Natural consequences are what happens after you do something if no one intervenes. Punishment is an intervention. It is an intentionally aversive consequence that someone in power or authority imposes in response to unwanted behavior. If there is no one imposing the consequence, if it's just a matter of what happens because of the way creation works, then it's not a punishment.
Does punishment always have to be an intervention?
For example lots of car parks these days have 'one way spikes' preventing people from going out the entrance and avoiding paying. If you try to you are 'punished' by having your tyres burst. This punishment is not intervention in the way you describe it - it is built into the system. It is purely impersonal and yet at the same time it was set up with intent to 'punish'.
BTW (and this in response to JJ's post too) we are using human analogies to describe God here. If you are are pointing out the limitations of such an approach then I agree. However, it is not sophistry to use analogies on the one hand and then to be aware of their limitations on the other.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Johnny S. quote:
For example lots of car parks these days have 'one way spikes' preventing people from going out the entrance and avoiding paying. If you try to you are 'punished' by having your tyres burst. This punishment is not intervention in the way you describe it - it is built into the system. It is purely impersonal and yet at the same time it was set up with intent to 'punish'.
I think that's akin to C H Dodd's understanding of "wrath" in Paul. But I don't think you can square it with the specifics of PSA. The key word, I think, is perhaps "substituton". It's specific, and personal. Jesus is on the cross in my place, for my sin, because that's what God wants in my case. Forgiveness, yes, but also punishment, without which I, specifically, can't be forgiven. The test of this is that that, ISTM, is precisely what the "governmental" understanding of atonement rejects. There is sin in the universe, an offence against God - but it's generalized, and Jesus' death deals with it in general terms.
The only way you could plead impersonal operation in PSA is to say that PSA is the same thing as governmental atonement, and it clearly isn't. PSA inevitably implies a personal, willed element, not just to salvation, but also to punishment.
Again, the giveaway is the line in the Townend hymn: God "turns his face away" - because he can't look at sin. It's personal - in our case, and in that of the dying Jesus.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Mousethief wrote:
"this meaty bone"
While the rest of us chew on this:
The Wrath of the Lamb (Revelations 6-19)
15Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” Revelations 6
BTW, Sayers seems to think that the Cross was the consequence of Israel's disbelief:
Quote
Now, nobody is compelled to believe a single word of this remarkable story. God (says the Church) has created us perfectly free to disbelieve in him as much as we choose. If we do disbelieve, then he and we must take the consequences in a world ruled by cause and effect. The Church says further, that man did, in fact, disbelieve, and that God did, in fact, take the consequences.
Dorothy L. Sayers, in "Drama and Dogma".
Only disbelief in the Gospel? Anything to do with the Sin that can never be forgiven?
[ 15. July 2010, 08:00: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm very soon going to be out of here and into hospital, but Psyduck ISTM that you have shifted from talking about "punishment" (which is what Johnny S is talking about) to "wrath", as has footwasher.
I asked a question a while back about whether for the cross, there was evidence for "punishment" as in "infliction of suffering" (possibly with the idea of some redemptive value) as opposed to "correction" meaning "righting a wrong". As far as I can tell, Evensong offered a verse in 1 John but it has nothing to do with the cross.
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
On a tangent that's maybe not, ISTM that Dodd's understanding of wrath in Paul as impersonal (and maybe a thread on the Biblical compatibility of governmental atonement would be a good plan soon!) explains why he treats the issue of same-sex sexual relations the way he does.
ISTM that Romans presents a "natural law" (AKA "blank cheque"! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) approach to this issue, but in conjunction with another component, an "empiricist" approach which seems to look for substantiation to the physical and pathological consequences of promiscuous sexual relations in the ancient world. What he seems to be saying is "This is what happens, because this is the way the universe is set up."
Paul obviously personally disapproves of same-sex relationships, and has no conception of homosexual agapeistic love in a stable relationship; but he doesn't invoke OT law here, because he can't, because of the relationships among law, faith and grace that he elaborates in Romans itself, which he sums up in I Corinthians as "Everything is lawful for me, but not everything builds up."
ISTM that despite his personal strong aversion, Paul necessarily sets his (actually very oblique and "for example" obiter dictum style) treatment of homosexuality in a framework of impersonal wrath.
If this is even distantly analogous to aspects of "governmental" atonement - and I haven't remotely looked at this - then the question seems to arise quite naturally:
Does the shift from a generalized, Biblical-compatible, understanding that empirical sin in the universe earns by way of reaction the "governmental" wrath of God, to a personalized PSA understanding that it's my sin that's being specifically punished in Jesus on the cross also lead to a framework of thought in which homophobia is inevitably ramped up to a huge degree?
Put it this way. Paul has strong anti-same-sex-relationship feelings, and an understanding that these things are "against nature." That's obvious. I take the view that, in his "proto-governmental" understanding, we can view his attitude to what we (two millennia later) call homosexuality is a personal take with the same force as his attitude to women's hairstyles and suitability as preachers.
However, if PSA is about seeing ourselves with the same contempt that God sees us as sinners, up until Jesus dies for us, takes our sin away, and God can look "graciously" on us again, doesn't that inevitably make us look at our own sexuality as something that must disgust God, and homosexuality all the more? Especially if we ourselves have homosexual inclinations... (And I'm not saying that by way of anti-PSA innuendo, but it is something that in honesty needs to be looked at.)
PSA is specific and personal. It needs an understanding of sin as specific and personal. The natural framework for such an understanding is Law.
Isn't it almost inevitable that PSA constitutes a covert or even overt attempt to smuggle the Law back into Christianity?
And isn't homosexuality in Paul as compared to contemporary conservative Christianity a test-case?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.
This touches on the theology of miracles in general. There it can be argued that the natural order of things is simply the way that God usually chooses to work, miracles are when he chooses to do things a bit differently for a change. Shouldn't the same apply here? Just because something's part of God's created order doesn't mean that he's not the author.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Again, the giveaway is the line in the Townend hymn: God "turns his face away" - because he can't look at sin. It's personal - in our case, and in that of the dying Jesus.
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
[ 15. July 2010, 08:22: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure PSA is personal in the way you describe. Certainly I think the calvinists I used to know mostly regarded the sort of declaration that "if I was the only sinner in the world, Jesus would still have come and died for me" with considerable distaste. I would have said that was a more Arminian perspective. Again, the criticism I've often heard is that it's too impersonal, cold and calculating.
And I'd still like to know about 'punishment'...
[ 15. July 2010, 08:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
X-posted with Eutychus: quote:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?
I think the key question is the "personal" (in the sense of "character-of-God" revealing - the expression used by several posters here) or "impersonal" (in the Doddian, Pauline sense.)
ISTM that as soon as you invoke glory, God's jealousy for his glory, or "offence" in the personalized, against-God-as-God sense, you have highlighted a retributive aspect of punishment, and made wrath into a divine attribute which has all the theoplogical and moral liabilities that this thread has recently been exploring. God's anger against sin raises questions of motivation. Is it like my anger at starving children in the third world, or my anger at someone who disses me?
I completely agree with the need for careful distinction of terms, but implications are just as important. Though yes, they should be highlighted as the argument evolves!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
Huh?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
Huh?
quote:
Originally written by Stuart Townend:
(V1)
How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory
(V3 4 & 5)
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
All this from the supposed master of hymns about how PSA is certainly the only atonement doctrine ever. It makes me laff when I sing it.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
Certainly I think the calvinists I used to know mostly regarded the sort of declaration that "if I was the only sinner in the world, Jesus would still have come and died for me" with considerable distaste. I would have said that was a more Arminian perspective.
One of the things that I'm taking from these threads is that thee's a big - and for them often suspiciously convenient - gulf between what people who embrace PSA say about it, and what, according to its classical expositions, it actually is. I hope it's clear I'm not aiming this at you, and I'm not "having a go" at anyone, but ISTM there's a regular, essentially unconscious, commutation between assertions of PSA and conflations of it with other, strictly incompatible, approaches to atonement when that conveniently "lets off the hook." I can't but see this in connection with the consistent refusal of people who say they believe in PSA to specify what it actually is and says.
quote:
Again, the criticism I've often heard is that it's too impersonal, cold and calculating.
Well, let's go back to the narcissism thing. Pathological narcissists don't take others seriously as persons. Others don't really exist for them, except as opportunities or obstacles.
However narcissists in relationships (and that's only an oxymoron on one level! People have to work with them, and are married to them!) treat people badly in highly personal, focused and destructive ways.
That is, pathological narcissism models a kind of "impersonal personal" that I think fits the profile of the PSA God horrifyingly well.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
Huh?
quote:
Originally written by Stuart Townend:
(V1)
How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory
(V3 4 & 5)
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
All this from the supposed master of hymns about how PSA is certainly the only atonement doctrine ever. It makes me laff when I sing it.
I've no idea how that quote is meant to be relevant to anything we're talking about.
But the last two lines of the Townend lyric make the point about the personal aspect of PSA.
PS I think Townend's theology is execrable, but it doesn't make me laff. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 15. July 2010, 08:48: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Psyduck, do you mean the very two last lines? My point is that there, just after admitting agnosticism about quite how the atonement works ("I cannot give an answer") he name checks a different atonement model, Devil's Ransom. Yes there's PSA imagery in the hymn but we have to be careful when quoting from it, there's other stuff as well. The bit about the Father turning his face away, for instance, ISTR being quite a feature in Moltmann's TCG, which wasn't exactly PSA either.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb]Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.
This touches on the theology of miracles in general. There it can be argued that the natural order of things is simply the way that God usually chooses to work, miracles are when he chooses to do things a bit differently for a change. Shouldn't the same apply here? Just because something's part of God's created order doesn't mean that he's not the author.
The logical conclusion of conflating punishment with natural consequences is to say that God was punishing the people of New Orleans for the sin of building on a flood plain. I presume you wouldn't be happy with such an analysis, and, if so, then clearly, in your own mind, you draw a distinction between the two.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, made a hash of the code through posting an a Blackberry.
Some kindly passing host might like to edit, ince the window has passed.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
Psyduck, do you mean the very two last lines? My point is that there, just after admitting agnosticism about quite how the atonement works ("I cannot give an answer") he name checks a different atonement model, Devil's Ransom.
Now we're getting down to it.
You're seriously telling me that Townend's hymn envisages Jesus settling up with God for our sins, and then going back to the court cashier, and paying off the Devil, too? I suppose that might be what Townend means, but I always took it that he meant ransome as a convenient rhyming metaphor for the penalty he pays to God for our sin. You'd have to ask him.
But seriously, I ask you - do these two perspectives not occupy the same space? Can you really believe the one without the other? I'd make the same criticism of "Devil's Ransome" as of PSA if it seemed to me that it was a precise specification of what Christ's death actually, precisely accomplished. In fact - bring on a Church Father who does specify that, and I will make the same criticism.
It's to do with quantizing. That's the implicit claim in PSA, and it comes from the elaborate setting up of the theory. Jesus' death is measured, prospectively, to see if it will fit the bill. His sacrifice/penalty has to be paid by humanity. So he is incarnated. Check. The offence against God is infinite, so the value of his sacrifice has to be infinite. But it's OK - he's God, so the cheque is blank. Check. He must be sinless - but that's OK, also because he's God. Check. (And note how the Apollinarianism of the whole does away with the need to have an immaculate conception! You can account for the necessary sinlessness simply in terms of Jesus' being God. And to get round those irksome accusations of cruelty, well - he's God, so this is God doing it to himself. Check.
No room for anything else. That's the balance sheet. If you want to doodle CV or Moral Influence in the margins, knock yourself out - the only important thing is - the sums add up.
Now AFAIK, "Devil's ransome" is always presented in terms of unstructured, understood rights that the Devil has acquired over humanity. It's very much analogous to slavery, in a situation in which everybody agrees that slavery is just the way things are. Jesus puts submits himself to the power of the devil, but the devil can't hold him. Fair enough. Jesus escapes this condition by bursting out of its hold. The rights expire. It's all very approximate, and "just one way of telling the story."
Whereas PSA is always the story.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?
Okay. Just so that you've got something to read while you recover from your op... although we've gone over this at some length on the Cv and more recently other PSA thread.
1 Peter 2: 24 speaks of Christ's death on the cross in these terms (quoting Isaiah 53) - 'by his wounds you have been healed'. Literally the Greek is singular (by the wounding of whom / by the beating of whom) it is a clear reference to Christ receiving punishment.
Now, as we have discussed at length before, in the context of 1 Peter 2 the suffering Jesus endures is unjust, it is the punishment of the Romans of which he is innocent. Nevertheless Peter is specific it is Christ being punished that enables our healing.
In Galatians 3: 13 Paul says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. Paul uses the word 'curse' here because of the Deuteronomy quote but any Jew familiar with the Law would think in terms of the punishments for disobeying and the blessings for obedience.
This is certainly how Justin Martyr, Eusebius and Hilary of Poitiers understood Galatians 3 so it is not some Reformation invention.
Indeed PSA, while not a dominant theme, is present even in the church Fathers. John Chrysostom's famous king-robber illustration uses the language of punishment very clearly.
Then we have 2 Corinthians 5: 21 - what does it mean to say that Christ 'became sin for us'? Is Christ still sin for us? How can become sin for us and not still be sin? PSA is an attempt to come up with an analogy to help us have a category for that. At this point opponents of PSA will say that the text does not allude to any penal motif. And they are correct. However, when they go on to use analogies like "Christ sucked all the sin into himself" they, likewise, have absolutely no textual evidence for saying so.
Now I'm not saying that they are wrong to use these CV type medical metaphors. I have many times. (Spiderman 3 anyone?) But at this point I have to admit that I'm using a model to try and explain the text, I have no biblical warrant to do so. The question is does this model fit the rest of scripture? Again I'd say 'yes', but that it is insufficient.
At the same time I'm also looking for a model that answers what I think is the big mystery of the bible - how does God deal with sin? I'm not posing this like some abstract philosophy as psyduck suggests, I mean it as a recurring textual problem. For example, my wife led a prayer meeting tonight and started with Psalm 103. I was struck as we read it by its strong emphasis on God's compassion, that he is slow to anger and that he does not treat us as our sins deserve. I affirm all of that as true. I love to hear that. However, how do I reconcile it with all the many, many passages in both OT and NT that speak very directly about God punishing sin?
This is a genuine hermeneutical problem for me. If we say that the judgment passages reflect a mistaken view of God how do we know that the compassionate passages are not also mistaken? (Especially since Jesus spoke so many times about God's judgment.)
On face value if we are to allow for any kind of consistency at all then we are forced to accept a view of God who is fickle and mostly loving but loses his temper every now and then. PSA is an attempt, I think to reconcile them in a way that listens to all voices from scripture and still maintains a consistent and yet compassionate God.
So in short:
1. I think there is biblical support for Christ bearing punishment for us in 1 Peter 2, Isaiah 53, and Galatians 3.
2. There is support for the notion of Christ bearing our punishment throughout church history too.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
No room for anything else. That's the balance sheet. If you want to doodle CV or Moral Influence in the margins, knock yourself out - the only important thing is - the sums add up.
Would you rather that it didn't add up?
I thought the major complaint against PSA was that it didn't add up? (e.g. it is not fair for an innocent man to die for a guilty one.)
Your major accusation against a model is that it is consistent?
Of course PSA doesn't add up in this exhaustive sense. How could it? It's just a model!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If Dinghy Sailor was defeated by the code, I'll have a try:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.
No he wasn't. Herod was a secular authority. Indeed all talk of God as king was highly seditious. What inscription did Pilate put on the cross?
And yet, Pilate wanted nothing to do with the trial and washed his hands of it. INRI was a slap in the face of the priests as much as anything.
quote:
And when we get to the book of Revelation Rome and the Emperor are specifically targetted. However late you date Revelation Christianity was still a minority taking very dangerous pot-shots.
And was already being persecuted. In for a penny, let's rob the bank!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?
You're doing it again. My point is that people were good and bad then and they still are now. No change.
And if by that you mean humans are not perfect, either perfectly good or perfectly evil, I agree. But simply because you don't have and can never have perfection while being human doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between Jack the Ripper and Mother Theresa.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.
Statistical variation? Do you really believe this stuff or are you just winding me up?
Yes. That you don't understand it and don't seem to want to try to understand the world you live in is a failing in you.
Without using statistics you can't work out what's going on. To take another example, we can say things about the prevalence of hurricanes in florida and whether they are becoming more or less frequent. But at any given time there either is or isn't a hurricane. You need to use statistical variation to tell the long term trends.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?
Small, who said anything about small? The whole point of it being illegal is that it is harder to trace and quantify, but even with that it is certainly not small.
No. The whole point about it being illegal is that the incentives (social, legal, and economic) are massively changed. It being harder to trace and quantify is a side effect, not the goal.
quote:
You're bring up your definition of perfection again. One I never used.
Let's get this straight. You fully admit that the only way we've seen any progress is through coercion.
As normal you're creating a strawman. I have never said the only way we have seen any progress is anything. One way we've seen progress is through coercion - but moral progress comes from changing the incentive structure against win-lose towards either win-win or forcing a lose-lose (as banning things tries to do). It's much more like gardening - planting seeds, spreading fertiliser, and nurturing. Rather than just weeding, which is all justice amounts to.
quote:
But you still have the notion that God should be able to do it differently because of your definition of perfection. Why? What reason do you have for saying God can't act this way?
Because banning something is a crude tool that has unwanted side effects (the sending things underground as you have so helpfully mentioned). And because retribution is not prevention.
quote:
Your definition of perfection seems to be a square-circle.
Possibly. It certainly requires great subtlety. On the other hand claiming your God is perfect is trying to pass off a pentagram as a circle.
quote:
Overall you sound rather like a re-hash of Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”
I have to agree with Russell here. It is why I can't stomach liberal Christianity.
Neither can I. On the other hand, my response to Conservative Christianity is to want to storm the gates of heaven - and if that means allying with Satan, so be it. He literally can not be more evil than God.
quote:
Let's go back to your statistical variation earlier. Let's assume for a moment that I accept your premise that humans are getting morally better on their own. (You may have noticed that I don't agree but let's just assume it for now.)
Fair enough.
quote:
Life is still a massive lottery. Billions of people live with the daily reality of starvation, disease, rape, war ... and worse. Their fate is a simple lottery of their birth. To me they are people. To you they are statistics.
People are people to me. On the other hand there are more tragedies than I have tears to shed. And more acts of grace than I have smiles to give. I simply can not comprehend ten million people at once. My brain is limited. But this doesn't mean I can not engage with that sort of level through statistics. A hundred million people alive who would otherwise be dead through starvation is not nothing. It's overwhelming. And nothing compared to what we have accomplished. I literally can't comprehend 300 million deaths from Smallpox (the estimated total for the 20th centuryn before we wiped it out).
By blithely dismissing statistics, you fail to see the wood for the trees. But the wood is nothing more than trees. Lots of them. More than I will ever directly see in my lifetime. But does that mean I'm meant to ignore them simply because they aren't right in front of my nose?
quote:
What comfort to them is it if we do get a bit better in the next thousand years?
That depends on how compassionate they are. On whether they want revenge or things not to repeat.
quote:
If I am to believe in God at all in this world then there has to be another factor that Russell had not considered - and I think that it is justice. God is loving, powerful and just.
Except the God of PSA isn't just. He considers his wounded pride to be more important than just about anything else. He judges for eternity for finite offences.
Now if hell were instead purgatory, and sin was judged on works and he didn't care about faith in himself he might be getting somewhere towards justice.
quote:
That's the God I believe in. The God you are describing stands at the gates of Auschwitz and just shrugs his shoulders while adding a few more data entries to his statistics.
No. The God you believe in objects to Auschwitz, granted. He considers it a flawed attempt to usurp behaviour that should by rights belong to him.
Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent. Pick two at most. The Liberal God discards potence. The Conservative one discards benevolence.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)
I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.
God created the world and set up the laws and functions by which it works. I'm not using penal to mean punish, but to correct. I'm sure that you would stop dropping the knife if it kept hurting. Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to stop sinning.
quote:
quote:
But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.
Okay, I didn't understand that at all. Are you saying that God wanted to kill Jesus, instead of us, and that's why Jesus came, so God could kill him? But if that's the case, then Jesus wasn't a substitute for us, but rather he was the victim that God chose. But I don't think that's what you mean.
And when you say, "If he didn't," do you mean, "If he didn't die for us?" I'm reasonably sure we both think that he did die for us.
So I'm confused. Could you try again?
I think that we are coming at this from two very different places, so what you see and describe and what I see and describe are quite different even though we are looking at the same thing.
God knew that our sinning would kill us and that we were unable to stop sinning without his direct intervention. God loves us so much that he did not want us to die, so he intervened. He sent Jesus, or Jesus came, to help right our thinking about God and to take our place in death. By Jesus taking our place, death is no longer a penalty (consequence) of our sin as long as we accept what Jesus did for us. God changed the rules about sin and death due to his great love for us. I don't know how else to explain it...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
