|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why did Jesus have to choose to die?
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Yep
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Maybe not to you.
But perhaps you would like to address properly the points from my last but one post, instead of just picking one thing out of context, and putting your own straw man construction on it? Then we might possibly be able to have a sensible discussion about it.
Otherwise, I have better things to do...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Well I'll let others decide if I've created a straw man. I summarised your argument, which you agreed to.
There are so many things to disagree with the assertions you make in your last-but-one reply that one doesn't really know where to start.
This paragraph I find particularly problematic (and particularly mocking of anyone who doesn't automatically agree)
quote:
Now some Christians think that He can "just forgive". But, if that is the case, He can also "just not forgive" by an act of authority. If God is viewed as pure authority, and His moral character is whatever His authority says it is at any give time, then He is a being who is essentially unstable. Anyone who feels secure and comfortable in life can nonchalantly say that they can trust such a being, but I confess that I cannot. A God who can simply do anything without any reference to logic and the moral law, is a God who provides no basis for trust. The necessity of the cross is God's unequivocal statement to man that He is prepared to pay the ultimate price to uphold His moral law. It is God saying: "I am morally consistent, because if I were not, I would have just forgiven human sin without all this pain and suffering. I would have acted purely by my own authority, but I do not act like this. I respect the moral process and the demands of my own righteous law. Therefore evil has to be punished, but since I wish to forgive you, then I have taken the punishment on myself."
There is nothing that makes the formula you've assented to above more morally consistent than the God who could punish, but doesn't. In fact, the God who could-but-doesn't is far more consistent with the picture from the Old Testament than the God who is so caught up with some kind of legal argument that he has to punish someone - even if that turns out to be himself.
Indeed, the latter God should not be believed because he appears to be mentally ill and prepared to self-harm rather than keep to any recognisable understanding of justice.
Evil does not have to be punished. That's not biblically true (see almost every biblical character). God is not allergic to sin (see almost every biblical character), repentance and forgiveness is not necessary before God is prepared to work with people (see almost every biblical character).
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
To my mind EE’s argument centres on the premise that God MUST have a punishment to forgive and doesn’t want to punish us humans, so punishes himself.
Surely logic dictates that if God MUST do something, if He is compelled by statute do something, then there must be a force greater than God who has laid down that rule.
If God has come up with that rule, He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed. If some authority above God has laid down that rule for God to follow then there must be a greater authority than God, who has decided a punishment must be extracted from somewhere.
I don’t believe either of those are true because I don’t accept EE’s premise that God MUST have a punishment.
Legal arguments get into all sorts of difficulties about what authority lays down the laws, and who must follow them. The authority has a greater power than those who must follow the laws.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Evil does not have to be punished. That's not biblically true (see almost every biblical character).
Well, it's interesting that you support your assertion with reference to the Bible - a book of which you have a very low view, if one of your recent contributions on another thread is to be believed!
But what you say is simply not the case. The requirement to make atonement for sin is a theme that runs through almost the entire Old Testament, and, of course, it is fulfilled in the one true and ultimate atonement of the cross of Christ. In Hebrews 9:22 we read: "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." Look it up.
All forgiveness of "biblical characters" was through the atoning work of Christ, who was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), meaning that His atoning work reaches back in time to cover the sins of all those who lived and died before the historical event of the crucifixion.
As for evil not having to be punished... well, what do you understand by the functioning of the moral law? What you are really saying is that God - by an act of authority - can simply abolish His own moral law, which is a reflection of His eternal character. Therefore He would also be changing His own moral character.
Which brings me to...
quote:
Originally posted by deano
Surely logic dictates that if God MUST do something, if He is compelled by statute do something, then there must be a force greater than God who has laid down that rule.
If God has come up with that rule, He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed. If some authority above God has laid down that rule for God to follow then there must be a greater authority than God, who has decided a punishment must be extracted from somewhere.
This is a rather daft argument, because it presupposes that God has no personal convictions of His own, and therefore is not 'bound' by anything from within Himself. It's rather like a petulant child who really wants to misbehave, and wants to test the moral boundaries, but can only be morally consistent if he is kept in check by a higher authority, such as a parent. This is clearly a projection onto God of a distorted view of both morality and authority.
God, by His own will, is morally consistent. Therefore there is no need to introduce a higher authority to force God to be consistent - or to be what He actually IS!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Nicely said pydesbare and deano.
EE. For someone that prizes logic, yours has holes so big God could create another universe in them.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is God saying: "I am morally consistent, because if I were not, I would have just forgiven human sin without all this pain and suffering. I would have acted purely by my own authority, but I do not act like this. I respect the moral process and the demands of my own righteous law. Therefore evil has to be punished, but since I wish to forgive you, then I have taken the punishment on myself."
Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If that is "Bronze age" thinking, as some have said, then so be it. I'll have that any day over the confusion, dysfunction and neurosis of post-modern ambiguity.
It's more Anselm of Canterbury 11th-12th century thinking.
[x-posted]
[ 19. December 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Well y'know. I don't accept that the bible is authoritative in the same kind of sense as my Evangelical relatives, but I kinda expect people who make an argument based on the bible narrative to know what it says.
EtymologicalEvangelical, your argument appears to be that things are the way you say they are - because they are. And that God is the way he is, because he is.
Again, I have little problem with believing religion is absurd, so if you'd argued it was not to be understood but believed, I'd have less of a problem. As it stands, you don't seem to accept that the logical argument you are proposing is a) not logical and b) not even supported by the source material you say you are basing it upon.
So let me say it for you: EE's God is Absurd.
Fine. I now have better things to be doing as well.
[ 19. December 2013, 12:26: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.
Well, I find it rather laughable that you are claiming that I am not being logical, when in fact I am the one upholding the consistency of the moral law, whereas you and your cronies are claiming that God is effectively a dictator who can just "do what he likes" ('cos he's the big chief) without any reference to his own moral character. And apparently such a dictator can be trusted, because he is apparently benign. But a benign dictator can be otherwise, as anyone with even a minimal grasp of logic can work out.
Yes, it is scandalous that the innocent God should suffer because of our sin. The alternative is that we all go to hell, or God decided not to create any of us in the first place for fear that we would fall.
What you are proposing is the one option which is a travesty of logic.
As for conforming to the thinking of the past: I couldn't care less. What I am interested in is truth, not being seen to go along with the latest fad.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
As it stands, you don't seem to accept that the logical argument you are proposing is a) not logical and b) not even supported by the source material you say you are basing it upon.
Well, firstly I have explained my logic, and secondly you have manifestly failed to refute my argument from the Bible. So just telling me that my argument is not logical or biblical without any supporting argument or evidence is rather pathetic, if you ask me.
Run along now...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Actually, I think EE's got a point. deano said this:
quote:
If God has come up with that rule [that God must have a punishment in order to forgive], He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed.
It makes God rather inconsistent at best. Why would God make the rule in the first place if he's later going to dismiss it as unnecessary? Why would God decide it's unnecessary - what had happened that had changed the nature of sin that it no longer needed to be punished (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "punished" is the right terminology here)? deano doesn't spell it out: again, assuming for the sake of argument that God had at one point decided that sin required punishment, from which forgiveness could then flow, what would change to make God disregard that rule? Is God really in the business of making rules and then deciding, for reasons unspecified, that he's simply going to disregard them - if anyone else did that, we'd rightly be wary of them.
That said, I'm not 100% convinced the formulation "sin needs punishing which leads to forgiveness" is correct, or at least that it's the whole story. I am convinced that sin needs dealing with (to use a horrible vague term): it can't just be swept under the carpet. Sin, ISTM, is that which most endangers humanity, that cuts us of from God and each other, that hurts and ultimately destroys us. It is an offence to God that his world is blighted by it and that the pinnacle of his creation, humanity, is so caught up in it. I don't think it'll do to say that this doesn't need "naming and shaming", that God's love means he can just turn a blind eye to it. And I think we're so caught up in it - all of us, the sins we commit and the sins others commit against us - that we can't be free from it on our own.
I think what God's love does say is that he can't stand for us to be caught up in sin, for it to corrode us and put us on a path to destruction. So I think what something of what happened on the cross (and I'm drawing a bit on NT Wright here, see this article for an example) is God does expose and nullify the reality and the consequences of sin, but that he does that in Jesus - in God's own self. Why? So that we humans can be truly free from sin and its consequences. Not just in a "so we don't have to face the punishment we deserve" sense: I mean consequences in a much broader sense, in terms of the destructive effects it can have on our lives as much as anything. I also think it means we can, if we are in Christ, live towards that day when we and the world are free from sin completely.
So I don't think simply saying "sin leads to punishment which leads to forgiveness" is sufficient. Neither is simply "If God's made this rule then he can disregard it": that doesn't make God more faithful and loving, but less. I think it's more about sin being exposed for what it is, the consequences of sin being acted out fully (in Jesus, in God, the only one who could fully bear those consequences and then overcome them) and then people being set free from it and reconciled to God and each other.
I think...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
I'm sorry, I obviously mistook this board for serious theological debate...
Yeah, so did I.
I always thought 'debate' involved providing supporting arguments and evidence for one's statements. So perhaps you may like to provide same.
Otherwise, it is indeed nothing more than a playground...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.
Well, I find it rather laughable that you are claiming that I am not being logical, when in fact I am the one upholding the consistency of the moral law
No you're not. Punishing the innocent is not God's moral law. Never has been.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
whereas you and your cronies are claiming that God is effectively a dictator who can just "do what he likes" ('cos he's the big chief) without any reference to his own moral character. And apparently such a dictator can be trusted, because he is apparently benign.
My God is not a random dictator without any reference to her moral character. You don't even know what my atonement theology is.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for conforming to the thinking of the past: I couldn't care less. What I am interested in is truth, not being seen to go along with the latest fad.
Truth?
The truth is there are a number of different biblically defensible atonement models.
Yours is one of the weakest.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Actually, I think EE's got a point. deano said this:
quote:
If God has come up with that rule [that God must have a punishment in order to forgive], He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed.
It makes God rather inconsistent at best. Why would God make the rule in the first place if he's later going to dismiss it as unnecessary? Why would God decide it's unnecessary - what had happened that had changed the nature of sin that it no longer needed to be punished (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "punished" is the right terminology here)? deano doesn't spell it out: again, assuming for the sake of argument that God had at one point decided that sin required punishment, from which forgiveness could then flow, what would change to make God disregard that rule? Is God really in the business of making rules and then deciding, for reasons unspecified, that he's simply going to disregard them - if anyone else did that, we'd rightly be wary of them.
Yes, I completely agree. We would be wary of such a god, because of their inconsistency. When I wrote my post I was re-wording what I felt is EE’s premise, certainly not one I share.
I personally don’t believe that God ever made such a rule (that our original sin required a punishment to be forgiven).
In my opinion God in pure love and would never have made such a rule. Fallible man, passing on stories and writing them down over the course of a number of centuries, finishing in about 300 AD may well have misunderstood or misinterpreted God’s actions across the millennia, and believe God to have created such a rule, but I can’t see how it can logically exist.
Punishment for wrongdoing is a part of the HUMAN condition and not one that ought to be ascribed to God, who has no need of such a process.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Evensong, I don't know much about you, but it appears I am your crony.
I shall wear that as a badge.
Good man.
But a wee word of warning - you might get burnt if you hang about my camp. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Run along now? What are you - 12 years old?
That quote is more suitable for Hell. But just to clarify I am - according to EE anyway - the 12 year old around here! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
OK, let us think about this idea of a God who is somehow contractually obliged to punish those who sin.
Let's have a think about which bible stories we know that have something to say about that.
First one that comes to my mind is Ninevah in Jonah. If God is somehow contractually obliged to punish, then how can he show mercy to the inhabitants of the city - and all the animals?
How, actually, can you how mercy if you are obliged to follow a moral law? Surely you can only do one or the other.
Even if we accept a narrative that says sacrifice is always necessary for forgiveness - let us consider all the times when God met with men and acted before they did any sacrificing. That'll be - Noah, Abraham, David... all did the sacrificing later.
And even if we accept a narrative that God has chosen to save a particular group of people for his own purposes (the Jews, just to make sure we're all on the same page here) it doesn't follow that non-Jews could ever be saved with any kind of sacrifice.
It doesn't work.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If you require a punishment in order to forgive, you ain't forgiving. That's what forgiveness is - forgoing punishment, forgoing redress.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
This, I think, is a half truth. There are times when I have assured my children that they are forgiven while still punishing them. For example, when I caught one of my sons hurting his brother, I told him how disappointed and angry I was that he would choose to deliberately hurt his brother, who - like him - is one of my sons whom I love. I then assured him of my forgiveness and love for him, made sure - as best I could - that he and his brother were sincerely reconciled, and then sent him to sit in his room away from the family for 15 minutes as a punishment.
Now, using personal anecdotes like this is always risky because it might result in people feeling that I'm a monstrous parent who is going to mess up my kids in all kinds of horrible ways. I hope that's not the case here. But my point is this: punishment and forgiveness aren't mutually exclusive.
[ 19. December 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's for us, it's our childish, adolescent, Bronze Age right up until now sense of 'justice'.
When God resurrects the Jews of Treblinka and the Germans and Balts and Ukrainians who murdered them there, what would be just after that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, let us think about this idea of a God who is somehow contractually obliged to punish those who sin.
Let's have a think about which bible stories we know that have something to say about that.
First one that comes to my mind is Ninevah in Jonah. If God is somehow contractually obliged to punish, then how can he show mercy to the inhabitants of the city - and all the animals?
How, actually, can you how mercy if you are obliged to follow a moral law? Surely you can only do one or the other.
Even if we accept a narrative that says sacrifice is always necessary for forgiveness - let us consider all the times when God met with men and acted before they did any sacrificing. That'll be - Noah, Abraham, David... all did the sacrificing later.
And even if we accept a narrative that God has chosen to save a particular group of people for his own purposes (the Jews, just to make sure we're all on the same page here) it doesn't follow that non-Jews could ever be saved with any kind of sacrifice.
It doesn't work.
Hmmm...
Well, there is a reason why God was able to forgive the people of Nineveh and others in Old Testament times, while upholding the integrity of His moral law. It has something to do, firstly, with the basic theme of this thread, and secondly, I explained this in relation to Old Testament times in one of my earlier posts today.
I'll give you time to work it out, and then I'll be back...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
...if you'd decided to punish someone else other than your son for something he'd done, that wouldn't usually be considered just.
Exactly.
And that is why God does not punish someone else for another person's sins.
He punishes Himself.
Which is rather different, dontcha think?
(Please ignore my comment, if you don't accept the divinity of Christ).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Heh. The central conundrum here to me is reconciling forgiveness - especially in the (wholly biblical) sense of cancelling a debt - with still extracting the cost of the debt.
Actually, I think the debt analogy is quite useful. Suppose you owe me Ł100. You can't pay. I forgive the debt. It costs me. It costs me the Ł100 I'd otherwise have extracted from you. I don't have to go through any convoluted explanations of why punishment is still forgiveness, or why I can't just unilaterally forgive - I have forgiven, no-one has been punished, but it's still cost me Ł100.
That cost of Ł100 I see externalised in the cross; even if I don't know exactly how. It's imperfect, but it seems better to me than the standard evangelical explanation.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
No I don't.
Ah, I get it!
Now one of these people, who go on about God being able to do whatever He likes, and He can "just forgive" sin by an act of authority, is now taking it upon himself to tell God that He is not allowed to punish Himself to atone for the sins of mankind!
Well I never...
And to think that I was accused of not being logical!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
...if you'd decided to punish someone else other than your son for something he'd done, that wouldn't usually be considered just.
Exactly.
And that is why God does not punish someone else for another person's sins.
He punishes Himself.
Which is rather different, dontcha think?
(Please ignore my comment, if you don't accept the divinity of Christ).
I think it would be more accurate to say that we should ignore your comment if we don't accept what you think EE.
Well I pretty much disagree with everything you say because you seem to be making it up as you go along, but I also accept the divinity of Christ. That must annoy you somewhat.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Heh. The central conundrum here to me is reconciling forgiveness - especially in the (wholly biblical) sense of cancelling a debt - with still extracting the cost of the debt.
Actually, I think the debt analogy is quite useful. Suppose you owe me Ł100. You can't pay. I forgive the debt. It costs me. It costs me the Ł100 I'd otherwise have extracted from you. I don't have to go through any convoluted explanations of why punishment is still forgiveness, or why I can't just unilaterally forgive - I have forgiven, no-one has been punished, but it's still cost me Ł100.
That cost of Ł100 I see externalised in the cross; even if I don't know exactly how. It's imperfect, but it seems better to me than the standard evangelical explanation.
Following EE's logic though, forgiving isn't enough. God must be like a loan shark...
If you don't pay up, not only do you have to forgive the debt, but you MUST beat yourself up as well, otherwise the tardy debtor hasn't been punished, so the forgiveness isn't real.
[ 19. December 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ah, I get it!
Now one of these people, who go on about God being able to do whatever He likes, and He can "just forgive" sin by an act of authority, is now taking it upon himself to tell God that He is not allowed to punish Himself to atone for the sins of mankind!
Well I never...
And to think that I was accused of not being logical!
If you are God, punishing yourself for the sins of others is a pointless act. And is no more logical than suggesting that someone (anyone) needs to be punished to satisfy God's wrath.
Again, it isn't about telling God what he is allowed to do or not do, it is about thinking about whether the things we are saying - that we are claiming are obvious, logical and the only possible explanation - are any of those things.
And, of course, the only person around here telling God what he must do is you - when you claimed that God has a judicial legal duty to punish someone for the sins of humanity.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano
...you seem to be making it up as you go along...
I must admit that that is one of the more colourful (and delightfully bullshitty) ways of describing the act of taking seriously what the Bible says!
Funny, but I thought it was the "pick and choose" post-modern liberals who were "making it up as they go along". Your mate pydseybare is an example, as he has decided to give poor old Paul the boot. Why? Oh, he obviously just felt like it...
By the way... if I'm just making it up as I go along, then perhaps you would be so good as to explain the correct biblical interpretation of the atonement? Why don't you start with the system of sacrifices, and explain to us all what all that was about. Take your time now... I know this won't be easy for you. (I'd just love to see your interpretation of Hebrews. Now that would be a reet laff!!)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a debating point or a personal attack?
There are other ways to understand blood sacrifice than insisting that there is a deity who needs to be satisfied with the death of an animal.
If you start from the position that God sees all, then the death of one animal in this circumstance isn't much different to the death in another circumstance.
So if we then ask what the point of the animal sacrifice was, then it is easier to start by answering in the negative - ie not to placate God.
If we then believe that it does have meaning, then one explanation is that the sacrifice is for man rather than for God. That men needed to have a marker to understand the importance of forgiveness, not because God could be satisfied with blood, but because freely offered grace quickly becomes freely taken grace, which in short time becomes a justification to do anything you like - because you know that it is in God's nature to forgive.
Then one might say that the purpose of the sacrifice was to make a special marker by removing something expensive and of worth from the person making the act of repentance.
So the sacrifice becomes something for people rather than for God.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Your mate pydseybare is an example, as he has decided to give poor old Paul the boot. Why? Oh, he obviously just felt like it...
hosting/
EtymologicalEvangelical, importing disputes that have already attracted hostly attention on another thread to a new thread is not a "reet laff". It's jerkish and you've been around more than long enough to know. If you want to take comments personally, take it to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
pydseybare -
I've got to pull the plug on my contributions for today (as I start work at 7.00 am in the morning for my sins!), but I will just say that I think perhaps we could agree that sin has consequences (and that might be a better word to use than 'punishment'), and that these 'consequences' - this "cause and effect" or "sowing and reaping", to use the biblical expression - need to be dealt with in some way or other.
I would like to think that we could agree that the work of Christ on the cross had 'something' to do with this, however we express it and understand it.
Bye for now...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, so how will the consequences to the Treblinka Jews be dealt with other than in resurrection with full restitution?
And how will their slaughterers, apart from being punished randomly (it could have been you or me after all) by being that, and living blithely insane lives typified by having nice family photographs taken outside work, be punished, in the Resurrection? Why?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah? It's as if he's suggesting that the cross rather than effecting an atonement causes a need for atonement.
quote:
Acts 2: 36. Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah?
Nope. Good Lucan theology. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They, we, need metanoia, change of mind because we do. The Consciousness gave us a dose of reality by making us murder Him - not that it took much.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah? It's as if he's suggesting that the cross rather than effecting an atonement causes a need for atonement.
quote:
Acts 2: 36. Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
The Baptist theologian Paul S. Fiddes, while not referring specifically to this passage, does argue that this is the prime action of the cross. On the cross, Jesus takes on himself the fullness of humanity's evil and injustice so that we, guided by the Spirit, will see this, realise where we are complicit in these things (or affected by them) and turn to follow Christ's ways instead. So brings up the need for atonement and also, in way, effects it by bringing us to the place where we can be forgiven and freed from sin (or begin to be freed from sin).
That's quite a loose summary entirely from memory, but he does argue something like what you've argued here, Kwesi.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... if I'm just making it up as I go along, then perhaps you would be so good as to explain the correct biblical interpretation of the atonement? Why don't you start with the system of sacrifices, and explain to us all what all that was about. Take your time now... I know this won't be easy for you. (I'd just love to see your interpretation of Hebrews. Now that would be a reet laff!!)
There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.
Anyone who claims to have a "correct" interpretation is misguided. It says more about them than it says about anyone else. They need to question how they have succumed to such a view and whether it is healthy for them.
I wont even attempt to work through Hebrews. I leave that kind of thing to others as I really wouldn't know how to perform an exegesis of that nature.
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano
There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.
So we're all "making it up" then? Glad you cleared that one up.
You say that each interpretation is "as good as another".
And yet...
quote:
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.
So all interpretations are equal, but some interpretations are more equal than others.
I award you the George Orwell Prize for Big Brother logic.
Well done that man!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by deano
There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.
So we're all "making it up" then? Glad you cleared that one up.
You say that each interpretation is "as good as another".
And yet...
quote:
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.
So all interpretations are equal, but some interpretations are more equal than others.
I award you the George Orwell Prize for Big Brother logic.
Well done that man!
Thanks, I'll wear it as a badge of honour.
Yes, some interpretations appeal to me more than others. Your interpretation is less appealing to me, so I discard it to the waste bin with no more thought than if I were to discard any other piece of rubbish.
There must be some fundamental flaw in my character that wants my God to be pure love and without a violent streak that demand a death before help is given.
Or maybe the flaw lies in the character of those who do want a god with a violent streak.
Well, I guess I'll take a good look at my own character to see if I can spot where in my past I needed to avoid a violent god. I wonder if others will undertake a similar search.
I wonder if some people have such awful lives that they really need to believe in a god who will send them to heaven after death, but others will be separated and given an awful life in hell so they can see "what it feels like". The demand for death sacrifice seems to be an extension of that as it allows for a god who will allow such a hell.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
EE, are you labouring under the misconception that there is only one atonement theory which has been justified by reference to the Bible? Because that's just flat out untrue; there are several different (and conflicting, to some extent) theories which all have their backers, and which all derive at least some foundation from the Bible.
Apologies if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs but try these articles for an introduction.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Well then, deano, perhaps you would like to explain why God sent Jesus into the world to die a violent death. He was no passive victim, as you well know if you have such a great knowledge of the Scriptures. There was a purpose to it all, hence the words "it is finished". What was all that about?
As for insinuating that people who interpret the Bible in the way I apparently am, are violent, well, frankly, that is beneath contempt. I can't be bothered to mess about with a hell call, so I will treat that comment with the disdain it deserves by ignoring it henceforth...
[ 20. December 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
There must be some fundamental flaw in my character that wants my God to be pure love and without a violent streak that demand a death before help is given.
Not at all. You are merely going with the majority view of the biblical witness.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah?
Evensong: Nope. Good Lucan theology.
OK, Evensong, I entirely agree with your point. You do not, however, help me with the second part of my question, regarding atonement.
What I'm wrestling with is the relationship of the cross to atonement. As I (mis?)understand it, atonement was made possible through the cross i.e. it is the solution to existing or past estrangement. Peter, however, seems to be suggesting something different, namely, that the cross rather than being a solution is the major reason for the rupture between humanity (especially the Jews and proselytes) and God because it killed the Messiah. The cross, in other words, does not effect atonement but causes or focuses on the need for atonement. So is the argument that the atoning feature of the cross is that its efficacy is not the crucifixion itself but a later recognition by humanity of its responsibility for such an appalling act? Hence the atonement offered by Peter to those who answered to call to “Repent and be baptised."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
EE, are you labouring under the misconception that there is only one atonement theory which has been justified by reference to the Bible?
I am glad that you put that in the form of a question, because the answer is:
Emphatically NO!
I have never said or even insinuated such a thing.
Please don't dump that false dichotomy on me. Thanks.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
