Board index ‹ Christianity

[Cheese Nooble]

How can god be illogical if he wants us to seek the truth? I have noticed that many things in Christianity are illogical, and many christians say that they are just ordered to have faith in it and therefore, they do so.

Here are things which i find illogical.

1.The trinity concept. How can 3=1? The whole "you can be a father and a son at the same time" argument doesn't make sense either since it is stated that the each of them has a seperate identity (not sure if it's the correct word, english isn't my mother language so forgive me).

2.Why would your god (jesus) sacrifice himself for your sins if god can just forgive you? How does it also make sense that someone else pays for others' mistakes? Where is justice in that?

3.There is no single verse in the bible where jesus says worship me or claims he is a god, yet you worship him. Why do you worship the son of god more than god himself who created jesus and you? In fact it is stated in the bible that the the father is greater than all in (john 10:29): My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

4.The salvation concept is also quite strange since it encourages people to commit sins at no costs as long as they have faith in jesus. By that logic, i could be a corrupt since i know i will be forgiven.

Lets say i am someone trying to find the true religion, how am i supposed to determine which religion is true if every religion's banner is "just believe"?

[jimwalton]

You have asked a lot. This answer will be long because you have asked deep questions.

TRINITY. While some things seem to be self-contradictory, there are both possible and logical ways to reconcile the alleged variance. For instance, we know that light exhibits the characteristics of a particle and of a wave. So while it is a single entity (substance), it manifests itself in various ways.

Another way to look at it is this: Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either. I can be a father in real life, and I can be a son in the real life of the book. Separate identities, but one and the same.

Some people view human beings as unified entities, that we have no soul or spirit, but we just ARE—all of me is all there is of me. Some people, however, view humans as bipartite—a body and a mind. Is that a contradiction, to think that the "mind" of me is somehow a separate entity of the "body" of me, and yet I am "me," a unified whole? Not at all. It's possible. It's difficult to know the truth and reality of such things, but it's both possible and possibly reasonable.

In the Bible, the Trinity distinguishes between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence, But the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence (light, person, nature, in my 3 analogies).

SACRIFICE and FORGIVENESS. God can't just forgive us. There are "legal" and moral obligations that must be met. An injustice has been committed, and in that sense there is an "imbalance of justice" in the universe. Unless something restores equilibrium, the imbalance will remain. Suppose you owed someone a million dollars. You can't pay that. Suppose someone steps in and pays it for you. Now the books are balanced. And while it may not make logical sense to you that someone can bear someone else's punishment, God says he will accept a substitute from a "legal" standpoint. Humans did something worthy of death, and tipped the scale. Unless that scale is balanced, the universe will not be just. By Jesus paying the debt of death for us, the balance is restored. It's just because God consistently says in the Bible that he will accept substitute blood as meeting the legal and moral substitution for the infraction. It's like someone paying off your $1 million debt. And once the debt is paid, and only once the debt is paid, God can forgive the liability.

DOES JESUS CLAIM HE IS GOD? John 10.30 is the clearest statement of divinity he ever made. He and the Father are not the same person, but they are one in essence and nature. His claim to be God with his statement was unmistakable, and the religious leaders knew it and picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. For Jesus to be one with the Father is a claim to deity.

SALVATION and SIN. The Bible is quite strong and clear that people are never encouraged to sin, that there is always a cost for sin, and that sin and salvation don't belong together (Romans 6.1-2). Someone who, as you suggest, knowingly sins assuming they will be forgiven is abusing grace, and what they are doing is wrong. Salvation doesn't make evil either good or acceptable. In the Old Testament, there is sacrifice for unintentional sin, but there is no sacrifice for intentional sin.

Robert Capon gives us an illustration. Suppose there is a village with an absolutely infallible fire department, one that always put out every fire before it did any real damage and that never failed to save people from death or even injury. Now in the eyes of the fire department, its rescue operations are directed to the very same end as all the building operations in the village: keeping the place the way it ought to be. As a matter of fact, it’s so committed to that goal that it sends out fire inspectors to make sure people are not storing oily rags in closets and to teach them all the other rules of fire-safe housekeeping.

But when the siren goes off and it turns out that the fire is in Mr. Smith’s sloppy paint shop that has been cited for violations twenty times and that has caught fire three times in the past week, what do they do? Do they drive up in front of Mr. Smith’s and read him the list of violations? Do they say, "We’re sorry, Mr. Smith, but you have done this once too often, and we're going to have to let your place burn down, preferably with you trapped inside"? Of course they don't. They put out the fire any way they can because, in their eyes, rescue is their first business.

But what about in other people's eyes? What about in Mr. Smith's eyes, to start with? He's a pretty unreliable character, apparently. Isn't all this unlimited rescuing going to encourage him in careless ways? Isn't what he really needs is a good dose of the fear of fire? The answer could very well be yes to both questions.

And what his upright and fire-fearing neighbors? They spend time and money to make their places of business safe. Isn't it unfair to them, after they have shelled out for their own safety, to be taxed just so Smith the cheapskate can have his menace of an establishment saved over and over again? Again, very likely yes.

Well, you see the point. From anybody's point of view but the fire department's, rescue can be seen as mistaken for permission. But it isn't. End of subject. (You can make the same point with the illustration of an infallible lifeguard: the knowledge that rescue is guaranteed can and does lead idiots to go out in surf nobody should swim in. But the lifeguard can't let that consideration interfere with his rescuing.) In other words, people may take permission, but the rescuer never gives it.

TRYING TO FIND TRUE RELIGION. Christianity is not like other religions. Its banner is not "just believe". Christianity is evidentiary, which means we are supposed to use our brains, weigh the evidence, consider the logic, examine history and infer to the most reasonable conclusion. When I look at the various cosmological, ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments for the existence of God, they make sense to me, so I firmly believe that theism makes more sense than atheism.

Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam (and many others) are just cults, or distortions, of Christianity. Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet. But it still has Abraham, Moses, etc. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, salvation, life, and death.

[Cheese Nooble]

TRINITY. The bible mentioned that the father is greater than all, which means it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to be the same person. Many Christians find it illogical. How can one be greater than himself?

SACRIFICE and FORGIVENESS. See, there are two types of rights, rights to the god and rights to the people. The debt example is a right to the person who deserves the money back. Since money is returned back. the "sacrifice" makes sense. Doing sins is disobeying god, and worshipping doesn't benefit him it only benefits us. You can't sacrifice yourself for other's sins since that won't change anything unlike the debt example.

DOES JESUS CLAIM HE IS GOD? This verse means they are one in purpose not 2=1 if you look at the context of the verses before this verse. Also in (John 17:21 ):that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. Does that mean we have 14 gods? Nope.

TRYING TO FIND TRUE RELIGION. Actually, i am sorry but you are not using your brain when you are saying 3=1. There are also things which contradict science like this verse (Genesis 1:16): God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. It is scientifically proven that the light of the moon is the light reflected from the sun. So there is actually one light.

> Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam (and many others) are just cults, or distortions, of Christianity. Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet. But it still has Abraham, Moses, etc. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, salvation, life, and death.

You obviously have no idea what islam is and just mumble what the media taught you. Actually, islam is the fastest growing religion by the number of converters each year despite the war on islam so it is a more accurate statement that it is the "top" religion.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your worthy comments. I am glad to respond to them, and welcome the dialogue.

TRINITY. Jesus' voluntary submission to the Father doesn't imply inferiority. Often government officials are called "ministers" ("servants") because they serve the people and work for the common good of the people (in theory). That doesn't imply inferiority. John 1:3 speaks clearly that from eternity Jesus was equal with the Father. Philippians 2:6 reinforces the fact that before the incarnation Jesus was equal with the Father. In that same verse we find that Jesus voluntarily took upon himself the form of a servant. In John 14:28 Jesus says "The Father is greater than I." Jesus is not speaking here of the relation of the Father and the Son in themselves (in their essence), but of the relation of God to Christ in his temporal humiliation (his incarnation on earth). As I said, and you recognize, Jesus is a different *person* than the Father, but of the same *essence*. How can he be "greater than himself"? As I explained, the Bible distinguishes between the *principle* of divine action and the *subject* of divine action. The principle of divine action is the one undivided divine essence: There is only one God. The subject of divine action is either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit as three persons. The Son is the unique divine subject in that he took on human flesh. The Father is the universe subject of the act of sending the Son. The Father sends the Son according to his power, will, and wisdom, and the Son submits. The power of the Father is identical to the power of the Son and the Spirit, but the *subject* of the act of sending is the Father alone, and the *principle* of the act of sending is the one essence of the whole Trinity. The act of sending is therefore simultaneously a work of the entire Trinity, with respect to the principle of divine action, and yet it a work of the Father alone with respect to the subject of the action.

SACRIFICE and FORGIVENESS. You are mistaken in separating the debt example from the sin equation. Romans 6:23 makes very clear that our sin against God is very much a "wages" and "indebtedness" situation. With sin we have incurred an indebtedness that must be paid. The way of escape is for someone else to redeem the account by appropriate payment. Since the wages of sin is death, then death is the currency of the infraction. Jesus, the innocent one, stepped in to pay the debt in our place to redeem us from death. And yet the verse also makes clear that the life that is offered is not more wages (that we have to earn our way), but a gift, offered freely, to liberate us from the debt and set us free.

DOES JESUS CLAIM HE IS GOD? Again you are mistaken. The Greek word used in John 10:30 is ἕν (hen)—nominative singular neuter, not masculine. His use of the neuter gender in the numeral "one" indicated that Jesus was not representing Himself and the Father as one person, but that there was a common bond of unity in being between them. If he meant to say they were one person, he would have used the Greek term *heis*. If he meant separate persons he would have used the plural. The text does not assert the identity of the two individuals, nor, on the other hand, does it convey only the idea of purpose, but inward unity of function (principle of action). The remark was understood clearly as an assertion of deity.

As far as the context, the Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own unique Father (John 5.18). Jesus then admitted and proved the claim (John 5.19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying in later passages (Jn. 17.11, 21). This verse affirms their unity of nature or essence. Harmony of will and design is not the thing spoken of here, but harmony or union of power and operation. The context asserts that they are one in their power to protect the sheep. What the Father is, the Son is. What the work of the Father is, that the work of the Son is. As the Father is almighty, so is the Son likewise. As nothing can resist the Father, so nothing can resist the Son. Whatever the Father has, the Son has likewise. The two are one in nature, perfection and glory.

In John 17.11 & 21, Jesus is praying that the Church may also be characterized by a unity of function, a harmony or union of power in operation. Again, not one person, but oneness of will and spirit. He is not speaking of an essential oneness of being for the Church, but a unity of nature (the nature of Jesus) perfectly realized in absolute harmony in Christ: the divine power in operation in the harts and lives of believers. All born-again believers participate in the divine nature of Jesus (2 Peter. 1.4; Acts 4.32).

TRYING TO FIND TRUE RELIGION. I've already explained how 3 in 1 (but not 3=1) can make sense. As far as Gen. 1:16, in the ancient world they were not aware that the sun, moon, and stars were material objects. They were "lights". In the rest of the ancient world they were gods. The stars were thought to be engraved on the underside of a solid dome (the firmament). (It is not clear whether the Israelites shared this view.) Day Four would not have been considered by the Israelites to be focusing on the origins of material objects, since they didn’t realize these are material objects. Instead, the account focuses on the roles assigned by God to these functionaries. So the verse doesn't contradict science, because it's not a scientific statement, but one of function. The function of the sun, as explicitly stated, is to serves as signs to mark the seasons and days and years, to govern the day, and to give light on the earth. The moon also has its function: to govern the night. They had no idea that the sun and moon were physical objects, or that one was reflecting the light of the other. They merely knew them as "lights" (me’oroth): luminaries. The ancients knew the sun as a source of light, not as a large "planetary-type" of body 93 million miles away. So also the moon and stars.

The chapter has a strong anti-mythical thrust. The cultures of the world were filled with astral deities who were the focus of various kinds of religious cults and devotees. Here the author is saying the sun, moon, and star are not eternal and they were ordered by God to function in a certain way.

The author of Genesis is saying they are "signs" and "luminaries", not gods. The one true God is giving them their function, and it's really about that God is ordering the heavens so that humans can function by a calendar—days, seasons, and years. The calendar is established through celestial observations. The cycle of the moon was used to establish when months began and ended. The stars were used to help calculate the solar year and make periodic adjustments to the calendar to synchronize the lunar calendar with the solar calendar. Function, not material manufacture. No contradiction with science.

MAJOR RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. Actually, I don't just mumble what the media taught me about Islam. If I did, I would think Muslims were radical killers, murderers of people and destroyers of culture. ISIS is capturing all the news these days. But that's not my opinion about Islam. That Islam is the fastest growing religion is not a point I was making or refuting. My point was that Christianity is not like other religions, and it's not "just believe," as if Christians are mindless blobs of blind faith.