Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> In other words, he can't do what is logically impossible, with which I agree. Is this a reasonable interpretation of what you're saying?

Yes, that's fair, but in addition I'm saying that reality is the way things are and so God conforms his behavior to reality also, by necessity. If death is the consequence of sin, God just can't spin a fidget spinner to make it go away. He has to undo death by reversing the flow of how death came into the system.

> My disagreement lies in the fact that God harming himself is necessary for salvation, or a better world. I would request some expansion on this.

God is life; union with him is life, separation from him is death. (Like picking a wildflower. As soon as you pick it, you have broken its contact with life. It is now dead. The question is merely how long it will take to fade. Though it looks alive [for the time being], that won't last long. Though it still has nutrients running through its system, it is technically dead [separated from life] and fading.) Let's use that analogy (though that analogy has some flaws).

Adam and Eve were brought into the Garden and given access to the Tree of Life. There they could enjoy unity with God and be alive. God wanted them to have a relationship of love with him, and since love must always be chosen, not forced, He gave them a choice. They chose to rebel against him and chose to be separated from His life. Therefore that day they "surely died", meaning they were separated from God. All children born to them were also under the status of separation from God (sort of as if [another analogy] they had left their country to become citizens of another country. Their children were now citizens of the far country as well).

The Bible says that sin brought separation from God by choice, nature, and behavior. The separation was complete, and the result was "death" (separation from the life of God). The idea behind Penal Substitutionary Atonement is that someone who did not deserve to die took the punishment of death (archetypally) for all humanity, making it possible for them to be restored. The one who had never sinned became sin for us so that we might become life once again through his death nd resurrection.

It's not substitution in the sense of quantifiable exchange, but in the sense of a legal demand: Jesus, who didn't deserve to die, died as a substitution for those who did deserve to die. Somebody else who didn't owe the creditor anything paid your debt for you (death) and set you free.

That's the premise behind it. It addresses the problem because it relates to death and life, redemption and substitution. The only way to break the power of death is not to wave a magic wand, but to enter death and prove that it is not strong enough to hold you. (The only way to show a prison is not escape-proof is to enter the jail and prove that you can break out.) Otherwise it's just bravado: "I could break outta there." "Nuh-uh." "Uh-huh." "No you couldn't." "Yes I could." Somebody finally has to put their money where their mouth is and show that death doesn't have the ultimate power. Therefore the way to break the power of death and sin is to die as anyone else would, and then break out, to show that death has no power over you (Heb. 2.14-15).

> This depends on your definition of fair.

My definition of fair is where the punishment fits the crime, always appropriate and never a square peg in a round hole, and always appropriate and never too much or too little for the circumstances or person. "Fair" takes into account motive, mental state, information, opportunity, environment, attitudes, and intentionality.

> I am a staunch opponent of divine command theory.

I am, too.

> God should be swayed objective morality rather than simply making up his own rules.

God neither makes up his own rules, nor is He swayed. Objective morality is part of reality: It is what it is, but it is what it is because of the nature and attributes of God. In other words, it truly is objective morality. God didn't create it, He is it. Something isn't right because He commands it; it is right because that is His nature and it can be no other way. And if it's truly objective morality, then it is an uncompromisable standard of true rightness.

> I should also mention that burning people in fire is an unconstructive punishment that only makes more wounds rather than healing the wounds that perpetrators made on earth.

We are not to think of hell as fire (it's a word picture), nor are we to think of it as "One Fire Fits All." The Bible tells us that whatever punishment awaits people will be fitting to what they deserve (2 Cor. 5.10; Rev. 20.12), will be mitigated by degrees to fit their particular individual situation (Matthew 11.22-24; 23.14; Luke 10.12; 12.47-48; Revelation 20.13), and that God knows everything and will be perfectly fair with people.

[Book Mitten]

> Jesus, who didn't deserve to die, died as a substitution for those who did deserve to die. Somebody else who didn't owe the creditor anything paid your debt for you (death) and set you free.

This might apply to Christians, but I don't see how it covers people who have never heard of Christianity, who carry out atrocities, not to mention their victims. I would consider it a much better state of affairs where I was not burdened with the debt in the first place.

> Therefore the way to break the power of death and sin is to die as anyone else would, and then break out, to show that death has no power over you

Death may not have have power over God/Jesus, but it does have power over other living things. I would also ask where this possibility of death comes from, if God is eternal. Does it exist prior to the fall as a kind of logical possibility, which is then made manifest through the fall?

Continuing from this, the fall of Adam and Eve, whether symbolic or literal (Christians interpret it in different ways) seems to me brought about by deception and a naieve expectation on God's part, if he is not the cause. If Adam and Eve are given incentive to rebel against God, with no good cause to do otherwise, (Obviously they must have been unconvinced by God's authority as being an incentive to obey) why or how could they do otherwise? Moreover, why is it considered a crime in God's eyes?

When I make a choice (I believe in choices but not free will) I am compelled by various factors, including experience, conscience, understanding, inclination and so forth. There is nothing beyond this.

[jimwalton]

> This might apply to Christians, but I don't see how it covers people who have never heard of Christianity

Jesus died for all humanity. God loves the entire world. The people who carry out atrocities need God just as desperately as the good person who thinks his goodness will get him to heaven.

> I would consider it a much better state of affairs where I was not burdened with the debt in the first place.

Of course we would, but we can't change reality. We might also consider it a better state of affairs where we could fly or transport ourselves from place to place, but we have to play with the cards we were dealt.

> Death may not have have power over God/Jesus, but it does have power over other living things

Correct, and that's the point. We are slaves of it, victims of it. We cannot save ourselves from its power.

> I would also ask where this possibility of death comes from, if God is eternal.

Physical death was always in the system; that's not what we're talking about. The death that separates us from God is spiritual death, and that came about because of man's sin (Rom. 5.12).

> Continuing from this, the fall of Adam and Eve, whether symbolic or literal...

I consider it to be literal.

> ... seems to me brought about by deception and a naieve expectation on God's part, if he is not the cause.

None of these is the case. God was very honest with the man and woman, making the Tree of Life available to them and inviting them to eat of it, identifying the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, warning them of its dangers and being clear about its consequences. There's nothing deceptive in that.

He was also not being naive, have devised a plan and put it in place should they fail, which they did. God was ready for that. There nothing naive in that

He was not the cause. God gave them every avenue for success. Their failure was on their own part. Since God is an uncreated being, it's logically necessary that any created being is not God, is less than God, and does not have divine attributes (like perfection). There's no other choice. It's logically necessary that humans are capable of failure where God is not.

> If Adam and Eve are given incentive to rebel against God, with no good cause to do otherwise,

They did have good cause to do otherwise. They could become like God by following His protocol instead of carving their own path. They had free will to govern their lives properly in the context of God's wisdom and recognition of God as the center of order. Their choice to make themselves the source of wisdom and order was their own faulty decision.

> Moreover, why is it considered a crime in God's eyes?

I'm not sure "crime" is a good choice of term. They took to themselves what was God's. God is the source and center of wisdom and order, and the man and woman took those qualities upon themselves, as if they were the source and center. But since humans are not divine (by definition and necessity), we are inadequate for that role and function.

> When I make a choice (I believe in choices but not free will) I am compelled by various factors, including experience, conscience, understanding, inclination and so forth. There is nothing beyond this.

I agree, assuming there's more in the "and so forth."

[Book Mitten]

There's a lot to respond to here. But I'll start with this:

> God wanted them to have a relationship of love with him, and since love must always be chosen, not forced,

You don't "choose" love. You are compelled. That's why people use terms like "falling in love", and so on. There's also a difference between coercion and being compelled. Coercion implies attempting to force someone to love, which isn't going to work if they simply aren't compelled. I can't choose to love a God that sits by and watches the rape, torture, disease and death that occurs by the millions throughout history.

> We are not to think of hell as fire (it's a word picture), nor are we to think of it as "One Fire Fits All." The Bible tells us that whatever punishment awaits people will be fitting to what they deserve

First, how do you determine whether the Bible deems it a word picture? What about the ascension? Is that a word picture as well?
Something isn't right because He commands it; it is right because that is His nature

This in my opinion only shifts the terms in the dilemma (the dilemma originating in Socrates of course). Is something right because it's God's nature? Or is God's nature good because it's inclined towards righteousness?

[jimwalton]

> You don't "choose" love. You are compelled.

Wow, I strongly disagree here. Love is always a choice, an act of the will. If it's not a choice, it's not love. "Falling in love" is just a romantic feeling; we use the word "love" even though it's a bit of a misnomer. Love is when I choose to devote, choose to serve, choose to commit. That's how we can love our enemies.

> I can't choose to love a God that sits by and watches the rape, torture, disease and death that occurs by the millions throughout history.

Oh my. This is quite the zinger to toss into a conversation. If you want to discuss the problem of evil and suffering in the world, we can do that, but it's a lengthy discussion and usually doesn't fit (space-wise) with other discussions. If you've looked into or researched it at all, however, you'll know that there are quite adequate reasoning about the existence of a loving, powerful God and the simultaneous existence of evil. And if you haven't researched it, I don't appreciate the zingers.

> First, how do you determine whether the Bible deems it a word picture?

When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered to be figurative. Sometimes hell is described as darkness, and sometimes as fire. They can't both be true, of course; they're both figurative. The Bible says there are degrees of punishment in hell; fire has no such degrees, therefore the image is figurative.

> What about the ascension? Is that a word picture as well?

Of course not.

> Is something right because it's God's nature? Or is God's nature good because it's inclined towards righteousness?

God's nature is not inclined towards righteousness; it is goodness at the core, by attribute. God is good.

[Scape211]

Not trying to side line this conversation since I have been enjoying it, but I wanted to ask about this statement:

These things might seem separate, but in my opinion, they have the potential to make the Biblical God less likely. As a result, an alien or superhuman claiming to be the creator of the universe, but not actually being so, is a distinct possibility.

I can understand why you think this might be a possibility, but I also think it has flaws for a few reasons I could think of:

1 - Being an alien has no clear objective. What was he/it after? He didnt get anything physically from his trip here and having us 'worship' him after he leaves us seems completely pointless (since he cant bask in the glory). Maybe he was bored? Seems fishy.

2 - This potential alien had its own people who were suffering. They wanted him/it to come as a conquering king to get them out from under the oppression of the Romans. If he was their for some personal gain it only makes sense to carry out this goal as at least a part of his journey (especially if it would have been easy). Instead he preaches, does some miraculous things people cant explain, dies, raises and then leaves. Again....fishy behavior.

3 - I dont think an alien would claim to forgive our sins. An alien could make our lives better, show us better ways to harvest and grow with our planet, teach us how to be better to one another, give us new technology or advancements, etc. But claim to forgive our past sins?

The alien theory sounds more like Superman to me in the sense that he can do miraculous things and he cares about us, but cant save us from ourselves or give us a forever solution.

God being the creator makes way more sense to bring Jesus as a sacrifice. He doesn't want to help them just deal with the Romans, he wants to help them forever. Not only that, as a creator he has a desire to connect with us as people. Hence the way he preaches and talks about life to us. The miraculous works are there to give areas of evidence as to why he is who he says he is.

let me be clear, I wasnt trying to poke holes in your theory. I'm just trying to explain why I dont think it works. Would love to hear more about it though. Ive never totally discounted the idea of aliens considering there is such a vastness of space we dont know about. However I dont quite see how it links up with the biblical accounts.

[Book Mitten]

> Wow, I strongly disagree here. Love is always a choice, an act of the will. If it's not a choice, it's not love.

I can't choose to love someone (or even something perhaps) that I think is reprehensible. I believe in will but not free will. It's important to distinguish the two. The likes of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche for example believed in the former but not the latter. Choosing to commit and serve are actions that follow from love. If you personally love your enemies (I cannot, they wouldn't be my enemies if I did) then that love is compelled through some part of your consciousness, including the part that is inspired to do so by the biblical passage in question.

> Oh my. This is quite the zinger to toss into a conversation. If you want to discuss the problem of evil and suffering in the world, we can do that, but it's a lengthy discussion and usually doesn't fit (space-wise) with other discussions. If you've looked into or researched it at all, however, you'll know that there are quite adequate reasoning about the existence of a loving, powerful God and the simultaneous existence of evil. And if you haven't researched it, I don't appreciate the zingers.

It's not meant as a zinger. It's an expression of why I cannot personally turn away attention from the things that I deem bad when figuring out whether or not God exists. I have spent a long time researching the subject, including looking at the ideas of the likes of Leibniz, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, and many others, as well as the Bible itself. I have not found an answer that makes me believe that God is good or competent. Various answers such as divine plans, free will, historical narrative, providence, evil as an "absence of good", and so forth are put forward. I give extreme examples because they go beyond explanations such as "you can't have sunshine and no rain" (Though incidentally I sometimes like rain). Extremities cannot be painted over with such expressions. None of what I say is meant to be antagonistic, so I apologise if I've upset you by mistake.

[Book Mitten]

> I agree, assuming there's more in the "and so forth."

Correct.

> They did have good cause to do otherwise. They could become like God by following His protocol instead of carving their own path.

Obviously following his protocol was not as compelling a concept as the alternative, otherwise they would have chosen it. That's what I mean by good cause. Perhaps what I should have said compelling cause. It could be argued that following God's protocol is a better path and more beneficial, but what I'm saying is that they didn't see it that way. How could they do or see something which doesn't occur to them?

> Their failure was on their own part. Since God is an uncreated being, it's logically necessary that any created being is not God, is less than God, and does not have divine attributes (like perfection). There's no other choice. It's logically necessary that humans are capable of failure where God is not.

This seems internally paradoxical. If they are by necessity incomplete, why be surprised when that incompleteness manifests itself in the way that it does?

> Of course we would, but we can't change reality. We might also consider it a better state of affairs where we could fly or transport ourselves from place to place, but we have to play with the cards we were dealt.

What I'm getting at is that we don't have a choice in the cards we are dealt. You yourself use the term "Have to play with the cards". Examples like these are a case against the idea that free will exists, in my opinion. You might argue that we have a certain amount of free will within a certain domain, but any decision is going to be governed by the aforementioned factors like consciousness and so on.

> Jesus died for all humanity. God loves the entire world.

Does God then love evil? What I'm saying is that if some people never hear of Jesus and carry out atrocities, as well as those that have heard if Christianity and do the same things, what was the point of God dying for them in the first place? I should also add that punishment ought to be used for preventative purposes. You could say that there is some satisfaction among those that know of a punishment being exacted as a form of justice, but the guiding principle of its instantiation should be to reduce a deficiency in wellbeing, rather than simply creating more evil. That's why I am sceptical due to criminals getting away in this world. Shouldn't God turn the tables in this world? (For example, someone steals a handbag, then God tells them to hand it back and they do, or alternatively the theft is made up for by something better, thus the victim of theft doesn't lose their faith) The existence of extremities like those I mentioned earlier lead me to believe that I can't expect the next world to be much different.

> The people who carry out atrocities need God just as desperately as the good person who thinks his goodness will get him to heaven

Why shouldn't goodness get you to heaven? Won't heaven fall short if evil people were there? What's so important about belief?

[jimwalton]

> Obviously following his protocol was not as compelling a concept as the alternative, otherwise they would have chosen it.

That's not so obvious as it seems you are assuming. The text says they were deceived. They were tricked by a liar.

> If they are by necessity incomplete, why be surprised when that incompleteness manifests itself in the way that it does?

There was no surprise. Their incompleteness was accounted for, and a way was made plain to find a path despite it. They chose against the right path, even though the right path had reward about which they were told (the tree of life) and they were clearly warned against the self-oriented path (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). It wasn't a surprise, but it's not justified or excusable, either. They made their own wrong choices.

> You might argue that we have a certain amount of free will within a certain domain, but any decision is going to be governed by the aforementioned factors like consciousness and so on.

I think that a denial of free will is self-defeating. If we have no free will, but are determined only by consciousness and an unavoidable sequence of neuron firings, then we aren't really able to think. Reasoning is an illusion. Let me put it this way:

If you have decided that you are determined, then you can't possibly be determined. If you believe you are determined, you don't believe it for rational reasons. You believe it only because only you were determined to believe it. It is impossible to believe it for rational reasons. The only way you can believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. If determinism is true, then it doesn't make any sense for you to say that determinism is true, because if it is true, then you are assuming there are rational reasons for believing it. Fine, believe it, but if you're right, then your position is no better or any different than the opposite, rationally, because you believe people believe things aside from any rational basis.

If, as a determinist, you can't distinguish between true and false on rational grounds, and you can't say determinism is true. That means I have no reason to believe that determinism is true. If you don't have free will, you can't believe the truth of anything for rational reasons; you can only believe it because it is an effect working in me. So if you're right, you're also wrong. It's an untenable position.

> Does God then love evil?

No, God loves people. Evil is not a substance, nor did God create it. It's the absence of good. Darkness is the absence of light, not something in and of itself. God doesn't love what evil is, and he doesn't approve of people indulging in it.

> What I'm saying is that if some people never hear of Jesus and carry out atrocities, as well as those that have heard if Christianity and do the same things, what was the point of God dying for them in the first place?

God dying for them gives them the possibility of escape from it; otherwise there is no hope.

> I should also add that punishment ought to be used for preventative purposes.

Sometimes punishment is rehabilitative, sometimes it's preventative, and sometimes it's just appropriate based on what someone has done whether it rehabilitates or prevents, or doesn't. If some guy commits a crime, I don't care if you argue that punishment isn't preventative or rehabilitative, he still has to pay for his crime. Justice demands that.

> Shouldn't God turn the tables in this world?

No. The retribution principle (good people get rewarded in this world, and bad people get punished in this world) doesn't work. If the world worked this way, it would be self-defeating: people would be good just to get the prize, i.e., it would be totally self-centered, reward-oriented, and based in greed. In other words, the people who would "be good" to get the reward would be being bad to get it.

> Why shouldn't goodness get you to heaven?

Because it's unattainable. If goodness is what is required, no one would enter. And if goodness were required, where would you draw the line (and would that be a fair place to draw it)? (Someone could say, "Seriously? You need a 70 to get in, and I got a 69.9?"

> What's so important about belief?

It's not belief that's so important, but relationship. Christianity is built on relationship, like a marriage. Being good doesn't make you a good spouse; being loving does. (Being loving includes being good, of course.) Being with God isn't a matter of being religious or being good, it's being in relationship with Him.

[Book Mitten]

> Being an alien has no clear objective.

The actions of an alien don't have to make sense. It's actions can seem strange to us because they are just that; alien.

> What was he/it after?

It doesn't have to care about personal gain. It may just be playful and mischievous. Many human beings do things considered unusual or irrational. The same could apply to aliens.

> God being the creator makes way more sense to bring Jesus as a sacrifice.

A creator God however that is both omnipotent and benevolent is more needing of an explanation, as it is both interested in us and it has certain characteristics that will manifest themselves in the world in one way and not another. That is why I put in the problem of evil. It doesn't sit well with a good God that knows the sorrows of humanity. Just as you think that the alien explanation is "Fishy", I say the same of God.