Originally posted by twhitehead You haven't asked for a fair trial for any of the other thread topics you have participated in. Why now?
Because this is the very precious sacred centre of the christian faith. The precious blood of christ and his sacrifice is the heart of the whole thing and I'm not about to allow you to turn that into debacle or devalue it by mockery. Constructive skeptical criticism is fine .
Originally posted by twhitehead I still don't understand it at all. Are you saying that Christs crucification and death was perfection?(currency = perfection) It sounds like you are saying 'somebody had to die so God did it for us' but you sort of shy away from that. Is that what you are saying?
It just sounds rather like a judge sentencing a criminal to death then saying 'well I love have explained it to me in the past. I was hoping you had something more sensible. Do you?
In some ways I don't have anything more for you and in some ways I might. The basics of this is that God's justice has to be fulfilled. Evil cannot just be brushed off as if it is nothing , it has to be rectified , paid for , cleansed if you like. I would have thought you would know about the parts of theology that require Jesus to have lived a sinless life and for his sacrifice to be a perfect sacrifice.
Another way of thinking about this is concerning shame and guilt and darkness. When one becomes a christian the Holy Spirit reveals to you the true depths of your nature such that your self righteousness is shaken to the core. The Spirit strips away one's rationalisations and self deception so you can see you true need of christ. It is in this context that christ's sacrifice becomes relevant because his sacrifice and holiness is the anitdote to our shame and darkness. However , deep our shame is Christs sacrifice is enough to cover it and pay the price. He can therefore meet us at our deepest need. However , without this experience it will make a lot less sense to you.
Originally posted by twhitehead Atheism is not a religion and I never suggested that you would think it complete bunk. I don't believe that you find Muslim theology to be logically sound. If you did, you would be a Muslim.
Atheism is not a religion WHITEY
Not in the classical sense but you do follow a belief with a conviction that you are right and I am wrong , just as I do vice versa. In addition your disbelief centres around the same fulcrum as my belief.
Originally posted by twhitehead You haven't asked for a fair trial for any of the other thread topics you have participated in. Why now?
You haven't asked for a fair trial for any of the other thread topics you have participated in. Why now? WHITEY
There's something else I want to say on this . I detect a tone of cynicism in your question. There could be all sorts of valid reasons for my asking for a fair trial on this topic but your mind is so programmed to look for the "trick" or catch people out that it's almost as if you assume trickery or think something is afoot maybe when there is a perfectly normal explanation for it. I may have missread you , but am I right? If I am it is precisely due to this that I am rasing this issue now. After a while it gets a bit boring being suspected of disingenuousness all the time. It's as if you cannot dare to accept the idea that somebody might actually be a christian because they really think it's really true.
Originally posted by knightmeister Atheism is not a religion WHITEY
Not in the classical sense but you do follow a belief with a conviction that you are right and I am wrong , just as I do vice versa. In addition your disbelief centres around the same fulcrum as my belief.
Originally posted by knightmeister I believe God exists , atheists believe he doesn't ---I'm giggling as I'm writing this , did you not realise this?
That's a point of grammar that some atheists, like rwingett I believe, would argue. He has in the past insisted that not believing something is not equivalent to believing the opposite.
I don't really have an opinion of that grammatical argument myself.
Are you saying that everyone is religious because everyone has beliefs? If so, does that definition of religion agree with the standard definitions?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung That's a point of grammar that some atheists, like rwingett I believe, would argue. He has in the past insisted that not believing something is not equivalent to believing the opposite.
I don't really have an opinion of that grammatical argument myself.
Are you saying that everyone is religious because everyone has beliefs? If so, does that definition of religion agree with the standard definitions?
Are you saying that everyone is religious because everyone has beliefs? THOUSAND
We all believe something about the universe according to what we find convincing but cannot ultimately prove. We can't escape the choice we all have to believe something or other. Even a non-decision is still a decision. We all live in a world which does not readily give us a clear decisive answer about whether it means anything or whether it's just chance and so we decide by faith how to live. Belief is universal. Dis-belief is based on a belief in something else. For example , most atheist disbelief in God is based on a belief system that says "if God did exist I would expect x,y,z and I don't see it" . This in turn is founded on a deeper belief about the way reality should work.
Now on the issue of cannabilism if Jesus actually meant that they should eat his flesh why did he offer them bread symbolically , should he not have just hacked a bit of his arm off and got them to eat it.....?
Originally posted by knightmeister We all believe something about the universe according to what we find convincing but cannot ultimately prove. We can't escape the choice we all have to believe something or other. Even a non-decision is still a decision. We all live in a world which does not readily give us a clear decisive answer about whether it means anything or whether it's just c ...[text shortened]... n't see it" . This in turn is founded on a deeper belief about the way reality should work.
I still think you are wrong to call to atheism a religion or belief. For example you are atheist as far as all religions except Christianity are concerned and in fact also disbelieve much of what other Christians believe.
Would you call all that atheism on your part a religion or belief? If for example a Muslim says "your belief in the falsehood of Islam is irrational", would you admit to holding such a belief in the first place? Would you discuss it as if it is a belief you hold? Would you group yourself with other people (such as me) who hold a similar belief?
You must see that a lack of belief is significantly different from a belief and that the core of my own beliefs is not, and has nothing to do with, the absence of God, just as your Christianity can hardly be described as being based on or in any way related to your lack of belief in the Norse gods.
Originally posted by knightmeister Evil cannot just be brushed off as if it is nothing , it has to be rectified , paid for , cleansed if you like.
This is the heart of my failure to understand. Why must evil be punished/paid for? How does any of this cleanse? Is history changed or is there some balance system such as 1 stroke of the cane = 1 sin rectified thus total evil = 0? Is punishment or the result thereof somehow better than good thus resulting in the sum total of the punishment and the evil being zero (or good)?
It always seems to be assumed by Christians that try to explain it to me that your above statement is obvious or self evident. It is not.
How do you know this? Is it something you find self evident or is it something you learnt from reading the Bible or something you received via divine revelation or is there a logical explanation that I am missing?
Originally posted by twhitehead This is the heart of my failure to understand. Why must evil be punished/paid for? How does any of this cleanse? Is history changed or is there some balance system such as 1 stroke of the cane = 1 sin rectified thus total evil = 0? Is punishment or the result thereof somehow better than good thus resulting in the sum total of the punishment and the evil b ...[text shortened]... omething you received via divine revelation or is there a logical explanation that I am missing?
This is the heart of my failure to understand. Why must evil be punished/paid for? How does any of this cleanse? Is history changed or is there some balance system WHITEY
I think your confusion is caused by not looking at the individual and the struggle of the person to get right with God. This is what so much of the Bible is about. How can we dare come into the presence of a just holy and perfect God? How can we build a relationship with him if we are in darkness? We cannot personally stand in our own righteousness , we cannot earn this right by getting busy , we cannot cleanse ourselves. God needs to do this for us through Christ. I have had personal experience of the Holy Spirit putting his finger on a particular area of darkness within me. It was an area of shame for me. The image or word that God gave me was that however dark and awful that area was within me it was equalised by Jesus's goodness. I had to ask myself "is this sin so bad that the Son of God was not good enough to pay for it" - the answer was obvious and (after a a lot of tears) I felt a release from the guilt. I had been put right with God in a way that I could not do for myself.
Forgiveness is not about sidestepping and pretending that the thing to be forgiven did not happen or is not actuallly bad. Forgiveness based on downplaying the sin does not work because it's based on a pretence. God cannot pretend or lie about our darkness. This is why the price still has to be paid so that justice is satisfied. But from an emotional point of view for the individual this means release from guilt and shame. The worldy way of dealing with guilt is to say that it is an illusion (which some is but not all) and we should learn not to feel guilty . This is not the Christian way. The Christian way is to accept that God knows the full depth of our darkness and can deal with it and penetrate it deeply. How is my darkness to be brought into the light unless the light enters the darkness?
Now , any christian reading will immediately understand and relate it to themselves and it will resonate in their souls. It will make far less sense to you because you are probably standing in your own righteousness and don't feel that you have this problem. In a sense part of the confusion is that Christs payment is a solution to a problem you don't think you have in the first place.
Originally posted by twhitehead This is the heart of my failure to understand. Why must evil be punished/paid for? How does any of this cleanse? Is history changed or is there some balance system such as 1 stroke of the cane = 1 sin rectified thus total evil = 0? Is punishment or the result thereof somehow better than good thus resulting in the sum total of the punishment and the evil b ...[text shortened]... omething you received via divine revelation or is there a logical explanation that I am missing?
It always seems to be assumed by Christians that try to explain it to me that your above statement is obvious or self evident. It is not.
WHITEY
I absolutely agree with this . It is not self evident at all. The understanding will only come with a conviction from the Holy Spirit in a person's soul. Until then we do not fully realise how in darkness we are. This is why christ said no-one can come to him unless the father enables them via his spirit.
I think what happens is that Christians assume that the reason you are asking is because God is doing something in your life and trying to bring you to christ. They then assume that you will understand becasue of this.
Originally posted by knightmeister In a sense part of the confusion is that Christs payment is a solution to a problem you don't think you have in the first place.
I really don't see how me having a problem or accepting that problem should in any way affect me understanding it as it affects you. I will for the sake of understanding accept that you are sinful and totally undeserving of the forgiveness of God. Will that help? Or is this one of those famous catch 22's that go like this: 'delude yourself and all will become clear'.
I had to ask myself "is this sin so bad that the Son of God was not good enough to pay for it". Again the word 'pay' without explanation.
This is why the price still has to be paid so that justice is satisfied. Again 'price'. Are sins bought from someone?
Throughout you are assuming that I understand this concept of 'sins must be paid for' even though I have made it quite clear in previous posts that I do not understand it at all.
Originally posted by twhitehead I really don't see how me having a problem or accepting that problem should in any way affect me understanding it as it affects you. I will for the sake of understanding accept that you are sinful and totally undeserving of the forgiveness of God. Will that help? Or is this one of those famous catch 22's that go like this: 'delude yourself and all will be ...[text shortened]... ugh I have made it quite clear in previous posts that I do not understand it at all.
Try this then. Sin actually translates back to the word separation. We are separated from God and in darkness. Christ brings us back and joins us in union with God. He paid the price of our separation. Notice how when on the cross christ cries out "why have you forsaken me?" He is being separated from God by all the darkness in the world . His separation means that we can become joined.
Another way of thinking about it is that we are clothed in Christ's righteousness. Christ is a bit like a radiation suit for us. He protects us from the full effects of God's holiness on our sinfulness. Without the radiation suit we would burn up , we cannot take his presence. Christ takes the "heat" for us and pays the "price" for us. He takes the radiation as it were. In this way God's righteousness and justice are preserved whilst at the same time his compassion and forgiveness are also preserved in Christ.
Originally posted by twhitehead I really don't see how me having a problem or accepting that problem should in any way affect me understanding it as it affects you. I will for the sake of understanding accept that you are sinful and totally undeserving of the forgiveness of God. Will that help? Or is this one of those famous catch 22's that go like this: 'delude yourself and all will be ugh I have made it quite clear in previous posts that I do not understand it at all.
I will for the sake of understanding accept that you are sinful and totally undeserving of the forgiveness of God. WHITEY
Which is quite logical because any goodness within me is what God put there anyway. I have no righteousness of my own . I did not create myself. However , I do have the right to claim the forgiveness fo God , he gives me that right through christ.
05 Sep '07 16:441 edit
Abba not Father....
Back to Top