SS
Shadow Sarr
2 years ago
The idea that God (the All-Knowing and All-Powerful) created man as a sinful creature(by God own choice of design) but then expects sets a standard that man should be sinless seems like cognitive dissonance.
Thats like locking your dog in a cage as punishment for eating a juicy steak placed infront of him, while being fully aware a dogs nature is to eat meat, then expecting the dog to replace the streak knowing fully well its incapable, but because you love your dog soooo much, you replace the streak yourself and then let him out the cage. This would make you mental-case not a loving.
The Islamic paradigm - where sin is simply just part of the human experience and God never expected humans to be perfect. Every individual is responsible to the sins they commit, however GOD - being the Most-Merciful and the Most-Forgiving can forgive those who repent from their sins. These are the people who are constantly choosing God despite their flaws. This idea matches our own sense of justice and mercy. The Christian paradigm makes God incapable of forgiveness instead God needs to be PAID (the opposite of forgiveness).
This is made up theology of the Church. Jesus didn’t die quietly in Nazareth claiming I am dying for you!
Jesus dying for our since is substitutional atonement. If I steal a car, under circumstances where punishment is warranted, is it OK for my brother to endure my punishment and for my debt to society to be considered paid? Don't we consider this immoral and that justice hasn't been served? If you were assaulted, would you feel like justice has been served if someone else went to prison on their behalf? How is Jesus dying for my sins any different?
RM
Reuven Mizraha
7 years ago
There needs to be justice in the world, the evil need to get punished, but it turns out they aren't. Jesus was punished in their place. They reject his sacrifice, so they end up getting punishment. But that's the same punishment anyone gets who rejects Jesus' blood, including good loving people that just aren't Christians. That's immoral. Good people should go to heaven and bad people to hell. There should be reward and punishment, but in Christianity there is none. The good do not get rewarded and the evil do not get punished. And if God can't tell the difference between the sins of an Adolf Eichmann and a Jew who loved their family and neighbors and helped the sick and poor their whole lives and even died in a concentration camp, what kind of god is that? That a non-Christian Jew and nazi get the same punishment?
That's my reasoning and one of the many reasons why I'm not a Christian
When did i say i consider myself sinless?
I think you're smart enough to understand
what i've been saying all this time.
When i love someone, i think
he deserves my love, just
because i love him.
It seems this discussion has
reached a point when we start
repeating ourselves, so i see
no reason to continue.
What i did to earn worthiness? Dunno, man. I always
believed that all living things are worthy of being
happy, without having any specific reason for
believing so, i just felt this is the right thing.
I always believed that nobody deserves a fate as
cruel as total destruction, no matter what he has
done. I mean, even if someone did the worst thing
possible to me, i wouldn't want him to suffer
indefinitely; at most, i'd want to give him a good
beating, not to erase him from existence.
And, then, God comes and tells me (through Bible,
which is his word) that, in his eyes, we're all
worthy of the cruelest fate, aka Hell (Romans 6:23)
and that, no matter how hard i try to be good, he'll
always view me as trash (Isaiah 64:6).
I don't know why God thinks like that. All that
offense he feels is just in his head. I mean, if
someone calls me a fool, i won't want him to be
destroyed, yet, even that trivial thing will
offend God so much that the one who called me
a fool will be worthy of Hell in God's view,
just because of that (Matthew 5:22).
And why, when i feel the need to beat up those
who used to bully me at school (not to trully
harm them, just to win a fight against them),
am i considered sinful because of that, whereas,
when God feels so offended at the minorest stuff
that he wants the offender to be annihilated,
he's not sinful? I think God arbitarily decides
what is sin and what is not, so that he will
always declare himself sinless and us sinful.
He has a serious superiority complex.
Anyway, my own personal Hell is the fact that my
creator, the one i used to view as a father,
considers me worthy of Hell! Can you feel it?
Imagine you're a child, your father provides you
with candies, toys etc, but also tells you:
''You know what? Actually, i should kick you out
of the house and let you die of cold, but whatever,
feel lucky that i love you and don't give you what
you deserve''. How would you feel? Would you still
be in the mood to enjoy dad's gifts?
And i have no way out of this, no matter how much
you try to comfort me. Only God could rid me of
this torture, but he won't. My sense of justice
does not agree with him and his sense of justice
does not agree with me.
Have a look at this...
https://solzemli.wordpress....
If that guy forgave his brother's murderer (and, by ''forgave'', i mean
he was cool with no penalty being paid), why can't God do the same?
Is that guy even more noble than God? Or was his forgiveness more
than Bible asks us to give?
Anyway, the key phrase in your last post was ''it is an overwhelming
sacrifice, one i am not worthy of''. In other words, God is willing
to save me, but he still believes that i'm not worthy of it. If i
accept that gift, i will spend an eternity in Heaven knowing that,
in my creator's eyes, i received something i didn't deserve. And
that knowledge will torture me more than Hell.
Don't get me wrong. There was a time i viewed God as my father, i
craved the day i would be released from this world and join his
kingdom. But, when i read all that detailed stuff about christianism,
when i realized that, when all this story is over (second coming,
final judgement blah blah), God will be left with the impression that
i was a piece of trash that received something he was not worthy
of, it killed me. This is not the kind of love i craved, this is
not the kind of relationship i dreamt of having with my lord. I
cried for days, i was like ''God, please, tell me that all those
theories are fake, tell me you think that i deserve your grace if
i regret my sins''. He didn't send me any message, he didn't say
anything. I perceived his silence as a way of him telling me:
''Sorry, boy, these are my rules, if you don't like them, get lost''.
And so, i willingly chose my seperation. Don't think that, from the
moment i chose that, i was as cool as i am now. It pained me
indescribably. I went through all 5 stages of sorrow till i got used
to living with the knowledge that, after my death, my soul will turn
into ashes in Hell, that i will vanish forever, that not even my
memory will be left. But, there is nothing that can be done about it.
God will never change his rules just because they hurt my feelings,
whereas i will never accept his sacrifice.
You can't understand my problem. I never asked Jesus to
pay for my sins. I don't wish to be saved if that means
an innocent person being punished as guilty in my place.
I will feel remorse if i accept that sacrifice.
Before studying the policies of christianism more
thoroughly, i used to believe that, if i regret my sins,
God will forgive me just like that. I don't feel it's
really forgiveness if you want a penalty to be paid first.
If God really loved me, my regret and change of heart
would be enough for him. Yet, what does he do instead?
He places me before the dilemma: ''You will either
go to Hell or accept someone else paying in your place
for me to ''forgive'' you''. I wish God didn't view
justice in such a sickening way, i wish i could feel
like he's my father (which is how i felt like before studying
christianism's policies). Unfortunately, the omnipotent
God shall not change his worldview for my sake.
And, to me, an eternity in Heaven with the knowledge that
somebody else paid my penalty will be worse than Hell.
That's why i want nothing to do with God. I will gladly
embrace my spiritual death away from my creator. Bye.
-It is impossible to never sin from birth to death,
because i am sinful by nature.
-I am sinful by nature because of the original sin.
-The original sin is not my fault.
Therefore, my sinful nature is not my fault. Then,
why do i need to pay a penalty for that?
Jamie: We became sinful by nature the day the original sin was
commited. But could God really blame Adam and Eve for commiting
it? He knew they were innocent and naive, yet he let Devil walk
around them, unreasonably demanding that they wouldn't fall for
his mind games. Hell (no pun intended), he didn't even warn them
about him. He didn't say anything like ''this guy is an evil liar,
don't listen to anything he says''. It is obvious God wanted the
original sin to be commited.
As i see it, this is God's logic...
-Sets up thing so that Adam and Eve commit the original sin.
-Declares all humanity guilty of a sin comitted by two people.
-Sacrifices his innocent son to rid us of the conviction he
forced upon us in the first place.
I think God has psychological problems and wants us to be
sinful, so that he feels holy by comparison.
The fact that it is impossible to never sin from birth
to death means that this is our nature, so it is not
our fault and there is nothing for God to forgive us
for or pay the penalty himself for. If he was just, he
would acknowledge that everything is his fault, for
creating us to be like that, and just accept us all at
his kingdom, without feeling the need for someone to
pay.
Actually Antony, God is very actively involved in every person's life here on Earth. In just the same way that God communicated His Truth to those who authored the documents of the Bible, He now is actively involved in teaching that truth to each of us. Jesus said that He would send His Spirit to convict us of the wrongs we have done and to teach us the things that Jesus had commanded. He speaks to us in many different ways but His voice is clear and understandable.
The problem isn't that God has left us without instruction but that so many refuse to accept what He is saying. And that all comes down to people's unwillingness to submit to His authority over their lives. You ask that God provides an indestructible holographic movie as instruction; well He went even further than that--He came Himself to Earth and taught all that we need to know about Himself. Some people accepted but many people, even with the evidence of the many miracles He performed and brilliant teaching that He gave, still rejected Him and His message. It doesn't matter how much proof a person is given, if they do not want to submit to the authority of the Creator they will find all kinds of ways to dispute it.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie,
By your rational that it is good for god to use mere fallible humans to teach humans of his word, we shoud teach children by the same process. Take one kid per school, tell him the facts, and then let him or her teach the rest of the school. If we reach one kid in seven, that's excellent, or even one in 1000 that is still fairly awesome. No... God screwed up pretty big, you have to admit. God is supposed to be the smartest, the most powerful, the most loving entity about. He is supposed to do good by his creation. So what does he do? Does he create an indestructible, holographic movie of some sort, where he instructs us on how to behave. Nope. He can't write a note let alone a mote, so he calls upon some people who really were not very smart, and told them some stuff, and this got passed into folklore before getting put into the bible with glaring errors and subtle errors and additions.
Smart? No. Wise? No. Human? Very much so. We wrote the bible from front to back. No God needed to make that. If there actually was a god involved, there would be jus one religion. Period. A god would have seen the problems of letting men do it by themselves. What better way to instruct than to actually instruct.
It just fails to all end that a creator such as we make him out to be, can't nay, won't reach out to us. The reason for his muteness, is the same reason a child's imaginary playmate does not speak, but through the child. He does not truly exist in any form other than within the imagination. I can have tea with Roger the Rabbit, just as well as I can with God. I just have to allow them to exist, and I can imagine them quite well. Roger, by the way, says my tea parties are excellent, and he also said you would not believe I had him over for tea. God just nodded in agreement on both accounts. I'm sorry you don't believe me. The prophecy of Roger The Rabbit foretold you wouldn't... Sigh. ;-)
Hi Antony, Don't worry about the long delay. I totally understand since you were so busy counting all the words in the King James Bible :) That takes time!
I can see how a person might get confused by the discrepancies there have been over time in the copies of the original writings of the Bible. Those discrepancies do not reveal that God is unable to reach 100% perfection but rather that God has chosen to work with humanity in order to accomplish His purposes here on Earth. He revealed that plan right from the very beginning when He commissioned humanity to be the care-takers of the Earth. We see it throughout all of His revealed plans and purposes: He chose individuals, families and nations to be the ones to carry His message of hope and redemption. He knew that there would be mistakes because of our imperfections but still He committed to working with us and involve us in His purposes. Of course that strategy of working with humanity was a foreshadowing of His ultimate participation with us when He entered into our world as one of us: Jesus Christ. It is the unthinkable: that the perfect God would humble Himself to the extent of taking on our imperfect form, to be vulnerable to the pains and sorrows of our existence, in order to save us from our rebellion against Him.
And God has not abandoned that strategy! He continues to accomplish His plans through the people of this world. The followers of Jesus are called the Body Of Christ because they continue His work as His representatives. They are referred to as "God's partners" (2Corinthians 6:1) You are right, if God did things on His own it would have been done perfectly, but because He has chosen to use us as His partners we can expect that there are going to be imperfections. That suggests to me that there is something important about this partnership. God is accomplishing something crucial in this cooperation that could only be done with us involved.
So the Bible is a reflection of the partnership between humanity and God. While there have been some mistakes made in the transmission of the text throughout the centuries there has never been any deviation from its core message and truth. In fact, we have far more confidence in the accuracy of the copying than of any other written material of a similar time period. And the clear message of the Bible is that humanity has rebelled against God and the only way for us to be set free from the consequences of that rebellion is through faith in Jesus Christ.
In regards to your comments about DNA, Antony I am surprised by your attempts at reducing the complexity of molecular biology. With all of humanity's accumulated knowledge of biology, chemistry,physics, and the developments of technology we have yet to be able to design those organic building blocks of life that the theory of evolution claims to have come together by chance. The attempts that have been made to create amino acids have failed to create any usable organic building blocks and have been created in an environment that is destructive to all proteins. So according to those theories, the setting needed to create the building blocks of life are at the very same time completely incompatible to life. Our attempts to design that which is supposed to have happened by chance have utterly failed. It only makes sense that Someone far superior to us was able to design the things that you call simple chemistry and mere physics.
Can I ask you about your final statement? Isn't your claim about all life the result of beneficial genetic mutation dependent on your belief that all things have evolved? Without any actual observed beneficial genetic mutation doesn't that make your argument circular?
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie.
I am sorry to have not responded earlier, but I hope you won't hold if agains me. ;-)
I find it somewhat amusing that you are quite happy with a 95% accuracy rate for God's inerrant word. At that error rate, of the 788,258 words in the King James Bible, 39,413 are invalid. For a perfect being, that is a pretty lousy horrid excuse for perfection.
All the monotheistic gods were attributed to limitless power, but all relied on fallible men to create his biography. Why do you suppose, a perfect being that can create a star from nothing in a fraction of a second, can't make a little document that is unambiguous, indestructible and universally understood. It's as if he did NOT want people to know him, but wanted instead to weed out almost all of humanity, just to keep heaven as sparse as possible. All we have are copies of copies (a simulacra at best, and that includes the additions that were added to the manuscripts on purpose) which have thousands of contradictions, penned by unknown authors. Would you want a doctor who was 95 or 100 accurate? Would you want him to have studied with 100% accurate documents, or hand written copies of copies and NONE of the found copies were ever exactly the same...
To be prefect is to 100%, all else 0% to 99% carries flaws. The bible, which is but reflection of god, is flawed, thus god is flawed.
Now DNA. Why MUST Allah have designed the cell? A cell is merely a collection of atoms and chemicals. Just because we are made of many cells, and cells are made of many molecules and atoms does not mean the atoms and molecules had to be wrangled by some magical mind in a short time span. Since biology is simply chemistry, and chemistry is merely physics, it is likely that life could begin with organic building blocks, and time. There is nothing prohibitive about it.
You mention that no beneficial DNA mutation has ever been observed. Look around you. All life is beneficial mutations! There s no life on earth that is not a mutation from earlier forms.
Original manuscripts are an extremely rare thing from the first Century, Antony. And yet we have copies of some of the text of the New Testament that are dated within less than 100 hundred years of when the originals were first written. That is unprecedented in ancient textual archeology. Not only that, but the Bible is unparalleled in the multiplicity of its copies. The benefit of that is the ability to study those copies and determine amongst all the variants which is most likely the closest to the original. The study of textual criticism is a well-established and accepted process. Not only do we have copies of the biblical texts themselves but we also have a vast supply of those texts quoted by early Christian leaders which help in the process of understanding what the Bible has to say. Even if we were to rely only on those pieces of the Bible that were quoted in other literature we would be able to piece together more than 80% of the New Testament. All this together we can confidently know that with all of the resources we have available to us today that we exceed 95% accuracy to the original manuscripts of the New Testament. And even with the variants that are there, the meaning of the text is never confused at all.
So I would totally disagree with you Antony, God has done a miraculous job of preserving His Word and giving us every reason to have confidence in the accuracy of what we have today.
As for the safety of our planet, I think I feel pretty good about having 5 billion years before the danger of our Sun's death threatens our existence. I fully expect God to have accomplished His purposes here on Earth long before we reach that destructive end of the planet.
God's Design of Creation is not just evident on the macro-scale of astronomy. When you look at the structure of the microbiology of our world it is easy to see that Someone has designed all the complex interactions of life. I saw a video that gives a computer animation of the protein synthesis, DNA translation and transcription of RNA in a cell. The tiny machines that our cell produces that makes the very basic parts of life work is astounding. Have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watc... and remember this is happening inside of a microscopic cell. It is an unbelievably complex process utilizing cell components that need specific information in order accomplish their specified tasks. To think that all of this developed without a Designer is just not acceptable. We humans are ourselves designers and yet there is no way we have the technology to design machines this small. But we are supposed to believe that random mutations have evolved this capacity? That just does not fit at all.
In our world we have observed DNA mutations that have made changes in individual creatures. But those observed mutations are 10000 times more likely to be harmful rather than beneficial, and the ones that are identified as beneficial are equivocally beneficial. One example that is often cited as a beneficial mutation is the sickle cell anemia. This is a genetic blood condition that makes the red blood cells sickle shaped rather than round like normal red blood cells. The benefit of this condition is that in some people the mutation is dormant (they do not have sickle shaped cells) the blood cells are more resistant to malaria and there is a survival advantage. But this benefit is seriously compromised because when the blood cells are sickle shaped they clog in arteries and organs and result in great pain and death. That is what is called 'beneficial mutation'?
There is no observed DNA mutation that has ever been completely beneficial and didn't compromise the life of the DNA host. And yet we are supposed to understand that all of life has evolved from this process of DNA mutation?
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Jamie: "I understand that seeing the design that is in the universe is a scary proposition for you because it means that there is a Designer to whom you are responsible, but those who study the universe are finding it more and more difficult to reject the growing evidences that our universe was intricately designed."
I don't feel that your misinterpretation of the universe as being designed is a scary concept at all. I can see why you feel it is designed, because the evolution has been working for billions of years. Of course their is going to be symbiotic relationships, niches filled adequately, even pairings like Dawin's Moth and the flower it takes nector from. This is exactly what you would expect from evolution. The flaws in nature like the wandering nerve are exactly as you would expect when nothing is designed.
It's not frightful, that you feel it was designed, it is sad. Sad that you can not see the path for the scenery.
As for your comment that our planet is safe. It is not. Not only will our sun die and kill our beloved planet in under five billion years, and if that isn't enough to give you a thrill on how short our moment in the sun is, our galaxy is on a crash course with the Andromeda galaxy, but that will be far after all life on earth has been extinguished.
Safe? Don't bank on it. It surely is not, it will soon, be as inhospitable to human life as almost all of the rest of the universe.
I feel sad for you feeling that the bible is still applicable in some way today, as it was when it was first written. And we do not have any of the original documents that have made it into the bible. Only copies of copies, and none of the copies can be known to be correct. There are transcription errors, translation errors, additions, subtractions, and modifications. It is without merit to claim anything in the bible is what was originally penned, as we have no original documents. Since the copies made were with error, it can not be known what was in the original documents. We can make good guesses, but we will never know.
God sure didn't do a good job of making sure his vital message was handed down very well, did he? Ow well, I guess nobody is perfect, not even God. ;-)
Yes the universe is full of dangers and characteristics that make life impossible and yet our solar system is placed in a safe part of our galaxy which allows for life not only to survive but to thrive. And beyond that our solar system's location is also a prime spot for seeing the rest of the universe more clearly. Our isolated position reduces the amount of ambient light and radiation from other neighbouring stars which allows our telescopes to spy out deep into the universe and study the dangers and beauties of it all. Even our solar system is set up so that Earth remains well protected from the dangers of the rest of our galaxy. The large gas giants provide a gravitational pull that minimizes stray comets, asteroids, radiation, etc. from reaching the interior planets. The asteroid belt equally adds a layer of protection for us. Our moon perfectly balances our planet on its axis to reduce the amount of rotational wobble that many of the other planets experience. And when the moon and sun are positioned just right, the moon perfectly eclipses the sun so that we can study it in ways otherwise impossible.
I understand that seeing the design that is in the universe is a scary proposition for you because it means that there is a Designer to whom you are responsible, but those who study the universe are finding it more and more difficult to reject the growing evidences that our universe was intricately designed.
The Bible certainly was written at a time that had far less information about the universe than we have today and yet the testimony of David is still as applicable today--perhaps even more so--than when he first penned the words, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalm 19)
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
The universe is deadly, inhospitable, unreachable and without design, but if you think it it our playground, to explore and enjoy, even though we'll never be able to reach it all. What point is that? That point of view may have made sense when people thought the stars were affixed to the firmament and thus reachable with a ladder, but we know that just isn't so. You know it's laughable that the universe ouside the solar system gets only a side comment not even a whole sentence long in the bible. It just shows how little was known back then.
The universe is not ours. We are made OF the universe.
Antony, I disagree with your assessment of the Christian worldview. Your description reflects a human resistance to the authority of God. So rather than understanding the humans are created by God to experience a unique, intimate relationship with Him you see the message that we are puppets being manipulated by a dictatorial judge. You talk about how we are punished by this megalomaniac lord if we step out of line in thought or deed when the message of Christianity is that it is God who gives all good gifts in our lives and when we separate ourselves from Him we separate ourselves from all that is good in life.
I guess I understand why you would see things like that because it makes it easier to reject the truth of God. But it doesn't change the fact that God loves you and wants nothing more than to see you experience the fullness of His goodness.
If His message is true than we are absolutely significant in this universe. In fact the whole of the universe exists for our pleasure, enjoyment and exploration. All of what has been created reveals the nature of the One who created it and the more that we understand Creation the better we understand our Creator, the one who loves us perfectly.
Our role in this created order is also highly significant since we are caretakers and tasked with the responsibility to unify all of Creation under the supremacy of God. Not only that but we also have become the proof that God is worthy of worship not just because of His great power but because of His matchless love. It is His love that motivated His extreme connection with us when He became one of us. Jesus was the visible image of the invisible God and came to reveal God to us and to reconcile or renew humanity's broken relationship with God. And as people are touched by the message of Jesus they prove to all the rest of Creation that God's love is unparalleled and is worthy of all of our worship. You see our importance and significance in Creation is based solely on the pre-eminence of God. Our role is to point all the rest of Creation to the perfection of God.
good article thank you for posting it
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Jamie: "I'm not sure I get that Antony, what is wonderful to live a meaningless, insignificant life? It doesn't make sense especially since all of humanity strive to be meaninful and significant. Where does that desire come from?"
Well, I did not say I have a meaningless and insignificant life.
I said "To see the beauty of our existence, we first must realize how utterly insignificant we truly are."
You are extrapolating the Christian view that we belong to God, and God as the creator of all, has made our existant complete and wonderful.
But this is an incomplete view. In the Christian view, we are but puppets (mankind) within a stage (universe of God's creation), and we are happy to constrained to strings that guide us through our life. If we cut the strings and go our own way, we are cast into hell, regardless of our own personal greatness. In this view, we are the focus of a dicator, who judges us on thought, not action. We are critized or rewarded by the creator. We are under the magnifying glass all of our life. Yes, all our life, as Jesus, in your mythology, states several times that Blasphemy is an unpardonable sin, and is enough to keep you from heaven permanently. God, certainly does not allow us to relax and be good for the sake of humanity, it is only for HIM that we exist. We have the greatest responsibility to keep God feeling happy with himself, and not doubt his existence and heaven help us if we think he does not exist (gasp!) We have the greatest job in the world. We are under the gun to behave all the time.
Now, when I said we are insignificant, it means the universe as a whole will exist without us or with us. We are truly insignificant to the universe. Our whole planet can be swallowed up by the sun (as it will in a few billion years), and all other life in the universe will continue on without us, without a glimmer of dismay. Indeed in a galaxy far away some where, our sun exploding, may be looked upon as a rare treat to watch through the telescopes. Nothing in the universe watches us with vested interest in what we think.
This means that we are our own masters! We don't owe a supreme being our patronage, nor our praise for not smiting us before we were even born (alluding to the fact that 75% of conceptions are naturally aborted without the mother even knowing.)
Now, you recognize that "all humanity strive to be meaningful and significant", and this is where my statement comes home. I have shown that we truly are insignificant in the universe, but do we mope around and say "I feel I am worthless." Being as insignificant as a rock, a bacteria, a banana tree, a gazelle or fellow human being, we are able to imbue as much into life as we can. We ARE what we make ourselves. We are truly the masters of our lives, because we owe NOBODY or NO THING our existence. The meaning WE give ourselves is the OUR meaning, it is worthless outside of ourselves.
We know we are here by mere accident, and we can be taken out by mere accident too. We can pretend that we need a guiding force in our life to feel important, but the truth of the matter is, it is better if WE are the guiding force in our life.
We live in the moment, moment to moment. We should NOT live the future available to us only after we die, as that is not a future, it is just a myth.
As we strive to be meaningful and significant, we succeed to greater lengths when we recognize the truth, that our greatness and significance was built from the ground up, by us. While some of us may stand on the shoulders of great people who came before us (for example: a great painter who learns from the masters, then continues to add to that skill), all of our accomplishments are ours, through hard work, preservence and intelligence.
While the human race is going to be extinquished in a few billion years, it by no means casts a shadow on our own personal future. We always get up in the morning, even though we know we well be crawling back into bed tired and worn out at the end of the day. We get up with joy, and anticipation, because it is OUR day! Ours to own fully, because we are insignificant to the universe, but significant to ourselfs.
I'm not sure I get that Antony, what is wonderful to live a meaningless, insignificant life? It doesn't make sense especially since all of humanity strive to be meaninful and significant. Where does that desire come from?
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
After reading some words by Lawrence Krauss I thought of this:
"To see the beauty of our existence, we first must realize how utterly insignificant we truly are."
This is a big step, and takes a lot of gumption to shed the comfy blanket of god and the whole enchilada of solace it provides. Once that step is taken though and you finally realize there is no designer, no master, no puppeteer watching the universe, you can see how amazing it is to be alive. How precious all life is (even for the bugs and plants) as life is the rarest thing in the universe and it is found on this planet (and likely a few others scattered about) .
It's a wonderful thing to have this short burst of life we have (and then we are gone for good.)
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Snowflakes and baking are essentially just chemistry an physics. A baker merely uses these sciences with biology to construct a great tasting cake.
Where did the elements come from? The Big Bang event created the lesser elements, and stars created the heavier elements. When the first stars of the universe died, they released their heavier elements into the universe to be amassed into new stars and planets. Our sun is third generation. If our sun was first generation, we could not exist, as we would not have the elements required for us. Pretty simply amazing.
As for there being nothing before the universe, I would suggest doing a bit of cozying up to some Lawrence Krauss' videos on the universe from nothing or something from nothing. He is an enjoyable speaker and packs a lot of information into an hour. You should come away with an understanding of how it is possible through mere quantum physics and gravity for this universe and potentially others before to come from nothing.
Depending on the speech by Lawrence he may cover the fine tuning fallacy, but if not let me spend some time on this simple mistake.
First the fine tuning arguement assumes life could only exist as we know it. This is flat out a mistaken assumption that life could only exis in our Goldilocks zone. Here on ear we see life thriving in conditions that would destroy our bodies. Hydrochloride acid, sulphur, and most prominantly plan water, are all deadly envirnments to us, but not others.
What we can see from this, is that life fits the environment (evolution), not that the envirnment fits the life (fine tuned universe). Some argue that if the universe "tuning" was off, the universe would collapse into itself, and what's wrong with that? The next universe, might just be able to not collapse. If a universe collapses it would do so quickly, so a whole string of universes coud pop in and out of existence until one doesn't collapse. The fact that we are here able to discuss the universe shows us that at least this universe did not collapse, and that life has evolved enough to allow such discussion. The possibility that this same conversation could exist in other galaxies (maybe in the past or future) is awesomely thrills.
Well Antony, I agree that snowflakes are understood through chemistry and physics but to say they are 'just chemistry and physics' is a little short-sighted. That's like calling a cake the product of just baking. Yes someone needed to mix all the ingredients properly and bake the cake but there is so much more to a cake than just the baker. Those ingredients that were used needed to come from somewhere, and the energy to mix and bake the cake had a source as well. What is the source of the elements that came together to make the snowflake? And how did the laws of physics get set in place to make a snowflake even possible? At some point in the history of our universe there must have been nothing. So where did all the energy and matter come from? More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that there must have been some point of Creation which brought all of the matter and energy into being. The laws of physics do not allow the universe to have an infinite past. And what about those laws of physics? More and more we are recognizing the razor thin balance that those laws exist in. A small change either smaller or greater for many of the laws we take for granted and our universe would have never existed. All this points to a Designer who fine-tuned all of those laws in order to provide the opportunity for life.
I realize that is a difficult thing to acknowledge because as soon as you recognize the existence of a being to whom we are dependent on for life we no longer can be seen as the authors of our own destiny. We are forced to recognize that there was a purpose for which we were created and are therefore responsible to live out that purpose. And that is something that many people are just unwilling to accept. So they come up with all kinds of other attempts to explain our existence so that they don't have to face the reality of God.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
I like ta you enjoy the diversity of the universe as I do, but I am saddened that you don't see the natural beauty for what it truly is: biology, chemistry and physics.
Snowflakes are mere chemistry and physics. Nothing more. No magic needed. I would love to be able to witness methane snowfall (on Titan) I wonder what it looks like.
Yes the universe is full of wonder. One thing that I find utterly awesome is that without other long gone stars building and dying, we wouldn't even exist. Ok, we might exist, but likely differently. We are truly made of star dust. I suppose you could say that our real creators are the stars that blew up millions of years ago, for without their creation of heavy elements there would be no chance for us. Had our sun developed at a different period in the universes existence, the elements may have been in different amounts, and thus life may have dpbeen different. Perhaps we would thrive in sulphur, or ...
It's just awesome! Even the dinosaur die out by that chance meteor was mammals chance to supersede the domanent fauna at the time. To follow our evolution from single called life to the awesome diversity of life that has been one the single planet is mind shattering. We look at the diversity we see today, but the fact that fossil records show that only a meager 1% of series that have existed currently exist. Looking through the changes that evolution fostered through the eons, is certainly a wonder. All the species that came and went, all unguided, all unplanned. Certainly thrilling to think about. I often wonder what the future evolution of man will look like. Maybe the next time the poles change position and the weather patterns shift, we will fall into another ice age, and the pieces of earth will enter into environmental adaption, and the resulting evolution could do what to the human race. Will we remain dominant, or will we fall to the wayside of some new upstart primate or other mammal.
Knowing that the universe is only biology, chemistry and physics, without a grand schemer and manipulator is as thrilling as it can get. It explains without conflict, why there is suffering, beauty, diversity, complexity, simplicity, and why most of the universe and earth is deadly to us, but yet we make the earth our home.
Yes,it is good at you enjoy the universe, I hope someday, you can see it unadorned by a supernatural creator, and see it in the raw, natural, unpurposed splendour that it is.
Actually Antony, I love exploring the universe around us because of the way it reveals the character and nature of its Designer and Creator. I was just out snowshoeing in the mountains near us with my family and some friends. It was a beautiful winter morning with tons of fresh powder and more falling all the time. My son commented on the diversity of snow flakes and we were all dumbfounded as we looked around at all the snow to realize how many different shapes of snowflakes there must have been to build up the four feet of snow that lay on the mountain at that time.
Now for a naturalist there is great wonder in the beauty of such a moment, the statistical phenomenon of "no two snowflakes alike", the nuanced process of snowflake growth into its intricate designs. However for a follower of Jesus there is the added wonder of a God who not only was able to conceive of and create such a process, and is actively involved in the sustaining of that process, but has also put this particular display together knowing that we would be there and would enjoy the awesome work of His Hands.
I am absolutely blown away by the extravagance of His creativity. From the beginning of His Creation the Nebulae that the Hubble Telescope has been able to recently capture in full colour for us has hung there out in the vacuum of space even though no one has been able to appreciate it. Yet still He put it there as a present for us as we progress in our technology and our desire to probe the limits of our universe.
I feel bad for those who have no awareness of God and miss out on the added discovery of His that comes through a study of what He has created. I guess that is why more and more scientists are recognizing the existence of an Intelligent Designer because His Creation reveals Him.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Michael and Jamie,
There is SOOOOO much to respond to from your last posts, that I won't be able to justly respond to all the points you both have made.
Firstly, thanks to both of you for your kind responses. I find the discussions had here, to be enjoyable.
Thanks Michael for posting a link to the video, there are a few points on it that I will discuss with you on that link at a later time.
Jamie, I feel that ALL life has intrinsic value. From the bacteria and algae to the blue whales, all life is precious to it's owner. All life forms when given a chance will preserve their own life by whatever means they can. Life forms value not only their own lives, but usually of others too, and some are alturistic, handing over their own lives for others so the others can continue on.
[Paragraphs on the evolution of morality deleted due to length - better topic elsewhere...]
As for God, if someone like myself who believes that God simply does not exist, God, has no intrinsic value. He has the same value as Santa Claus, unicorns, or leprechauns. Now, for someone like yourselves, who believes God is not simply imaginary, but 'real', God is indeed of great intrinsic value. (I use quotes, as real implies something that can be measured, evaluated and quantified without doubt. So athough God for you is real, it still remains unmeasurable, unevaluated and unquantified. There is no God Yardstick.)
For me to recognize that unicorns have intrinsic value, I would need to hold that they exist. Until such time, they do not have value beyond what the myths bring. They won't save the world, they won't purify polluted rivers, give people rides, or even chomp the grass in a meadow... nothing.
I hope you see God differently than I do Jamie. "Heaven help you" if you saw God as I. God, by not existing, would decimate your faith, leaving you with the natural universe as it can be examined and explored in reality, not as it can be seen through the age old doctrines.
[I have run out of time here, and haven't touched on everything I wanted to... I will post anyways...]
MH
Michael Horner
13 years ago
Antony
I should also tell you that I wrote the two blog posts on this topic with you in mind because of some things you had written in earlier comments on other threads. I I also did the following short video with you in mind and in sincere prayer that you would see, understand and receive the magnificence of the gospel.
http://powertochange.com/bl...
MH
Michael Horner
13 years ago
Antony
I just want to say that I think that what Jamie has been writing here has been very good and is essentially what I would want to say as well. What I want to emphasize is that I really hope and pray that you will see what good news this really is - that because God truly loves you, He has done what needed to be done so that you can come into a relationship with Him. Apart from Jesus willingly dying on the cross for your sins, the only option left is for you to either be perfect enough to be able come into the presence of a Holy God or you pay the penalty yourself which is separation from God. The first option is just not possible and the second is unnecessary. I urge you to give in to God's wooing of you. He loves you and wants to pour out his love upon you now and for all eternity. Separation from God is not a result of your 'not believing in God' the way you view it, but is rather the result of your moral failures plus the refusal to accept His freely offered forgiveness which is possible only because Jesus already payed your penalty. But God will not force Himself upon you. It is your choice and I don't know if you really understand what you are saying when you write "Why wouldn't I want to[be](sic)judged by my actions? Please do so!"
Antony there is a difference between what I value and what is intrinsically valuable. I would suggest that human life has an intrinsic value. Now there are those who show no regard or value for human life but that does not diminish the value of each and every human being.
In the same way, there are people who see no value in God but that does not diminish His intrinsic value. So our sin against Him is not conditional on how much we value God but rather it is compared to His intrinsic value as the Creator, Sustainer, Lord and Redeemer of all things.
Actually, I see God's value in humanity quite differently than you. The Bible presents that God has perfect knowledge of past present and future things. Therefore He knows the choices that we will make both those that choose to follow Him and those who do not. Yet still the Bible says that He died for all the sins of the world, not just for those who trust in Him.
Not only did He allow Himself to be sacrificed for the sins of the whole world but He also continues to pursue those who reject Him to give them every opportunity to recognize His love and choose to follow Him. The Bible clearly says that He does not desire that anyone perish in the eternal separation of Hell.
And is it also not love to allow someone to live out their choice rather than force them to accept a relationship that they don't want? A person who has made the choice to reject the love of God because they do not want to live under the authority of God has chosen to be separated from God. Even though God has warned them of what that life will be like still they say that choose separation. Right now on Earth all of us live with the blessings of the presence of God so we are still recipients of good gifts from God. But complete separation from God means complete separation from all good things; that is Hell. God in His love does not force anyone to love Him and if a person chooses separation from Him God will grant that desire.
I guess it is like the parent that tries to warn their child about the dangers of Crystal Meth. The parent exhausts every strategy they can think of to keep their child from using that destructive drug. But ultimately that child has free will and the parent cannot stop their child if they are determined to chase after the drug. How can you blame the parent for the choice that their child has made? How do you blame God for the choice that you have made?
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie,
In your previous comment, you mentioned how when we don't value beings (your example was a spider) we can be harsh towards that being without much moral upheaval. This I agree with fully, and I wrote about this, but I neglected an aspect of this that I shall expand on now...
As we change our value of a being, we likewise change our behaviour towards them. The more we value something, the higher regard we have for them.
Now, to reward a being with eternal heaven, must clearly demonstrate the highest of regards. Thus, likewise, to punish a being with enternal hellish damnation, must likewise clearly demonstrate the lowest of regards.
I can thus deduce that God cares not one iota about those who disregard Him. Very much, an Eye for an Eye.
The threat of Hell, shows, that if he exists, he holds no value in those he casts into Hell.
Just an idea for you to think about... Have a good day.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie,
You speak of a relationship of escalating moral responsibility in conjunction with the value we hold with that entity. That is so true and we see that present in with cultural diversity. In a culture that devalues women, they are forbidden voting rights, forbidden education, even sexually mutilated as a child of all horrors (female circumcision) . In cultures which devalue animals rights, we see them slaughtered for sport or luxury without a second thought, as if it were our right to do as we please to them without regards to their pain or suffering. Then when we culturally value something, we tend to place greater importance on it, and by implication, a greater responsibility for its protection. We can see this in the difference in public outcry when a child or prostitute is slain. You take this relationship of value and morality to the conclusion that if we hold something to be supreme then, acting immoral towards that something would naturally be worthy of supreme penalty (eternal punishment with no reprieve.)
You are forgetting about the act of forgiveness, from the wronged. While a crime perpetrated still exists even when forgiven, does the responsibility of moral atonement still levy the same responsibility? There are but two sides to every crime, and when one side absolves the other, for just cause, there could be no wrong truly done.
An example or two... We all know that theft is wrong, and immoral, but, think about a farmer who gives some food to a thief who he caught stealing some food, and then hires the thief as a hired hand. The farmer, is compassionate and sees the plight of the thief who was essentially, trying to sustain life, and not cause harm for sport or luxury.
Another example could be a child who steals from a parent or sibling. A family member (particularly a parent) is extremely likely to forgive a one time indiscretion. Here the immoral act was likely for sport, and not necessity, but the close bond between the two parties, can easily warrant forgiveness.
Now, are you sure that a loving supreme being could justify an eternity of continual punishment to his children with no reprieve for what, not believing something without evidence?
Imagine a parent who burns the skin off their child for 'thought crimes' even though the child was good and civilly responsible.
You would be correct to think of that parent as a monster of great immoral darkness.
Well Antony, I think it is very admirable that you take full responsibility for your actions both the good and the bad. It is very noble that you would expect to pay for the suffering that you cause other people. That is not a common trait in a lot of people. I see more often a desire to cover up the wrongs that have been done and to find excuses for the mistakes that have been made. I know that is a strong tendency in my own heart and it is hard to stand up and say, "I am sorry. I blew it."
Have you ever noticed how the severity of our mistakes often increases with the importance of the one we have wronged? If I am walking through the woods and see a spider-web across the path that I am walking on, no one thinks it is very significant for me to destroy that spiders home so that I can continue on the way that I am walking. Now if I were to destroy a beaver dam more people would be upset although legally I have not broken any law especially if the dam is on my own property. Now if I were to destroy my neighbor's home suddenly the stakes have increased significantly and my crime and punishment equally grow in severity. And if that happened to be the White House we are talking terrorism and threat to national security. What if my sin is against an infinitely perfect God, one who made everything including myself? Can you see how the severity of the punishment for that sin has infinite cost? It is not because He is the biggest and can be the meanest but because His value is so much greater than anything else.
Antony, my sin and your sin is not only to the people that we hurt but it is against the Creator of all things, the most beautiful of all beings, the most perfect One, the one who created us and loves us without limits. To sin against Him saying that He doesn't exist when He has gone to extreme lengths to show Himself to us, even to the point of becoming one of us, that sin is of infinite offense. That sin demands an eternal punishment.
Now you have been very clear that you do not accept the existence of God and I know my argument loses all of its impact on you because of that. I guess I just want to make sure that these ideas are planted in your head. You see there will likely come a time in your life when your determination not to believe in God may waver and my prayer is that when that happens you will remember this conversation and you will recognize the weight of the offense you have committed against God. Perhaps then you will be aware that there is nothing that you could ever do that would atone for that offense and you would realize how perfect the plan of God is to have Jesus come to take your place. I pray that day comes sooner than later because there is so much beauty in life when you live it in relationship and in the purposes of the one who has made you.
Lord God, I thank You for the way that you have made Antony, a man who is driven by a passion to know and to understand. I pray Lord that You would lead him on a path where he can discover the reality of You, Your love and Your plan for him. And I pray that he would have the courage to surrender his conviction of his ability to atone for himself and receive the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Amen!
Antony, I really hope this doesn't come across condescending or anything. I know we have never met but I truly have enjoyed our conversations on different issues here. My words to you are genuinely motivated by a concern for you and your future. I have experienced the difference that Jesus makes in my life and it is my desire that everybody has a chance to also experience that.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie,
I don't think any ritual of absolving sins is worth a grain of salt (Scapegoating, Jesus, circling a chicken around your head, or any other voodoo type fluff). A crime must NOT be absolved by what one thinks (or scapegoats). It is actions only that can atone for actions.
If God wants to punish me for each time I shoplifted, or caused the death of an animal, then fine. I also expect accounting for when I returned lost objects to their owner, and saved animals from death, and I will take my punishment. I do NOT want forgiveness just because I happened to believe in some diety over some other diety. If someone suffered for thirty years because of a slight I caused, them, then I fully expect non-forgiveness from some god, UNLESS and only unless, the person I slighted FIRST forgives me, and then I still owe thirty years of suffering to that person.
Yes, I reject the myth of God. If there were a god, I would fully expect him to be far better than he is portrayed. If he were real, just and moral, I would stand in his camp. Would I worship him? It is doubtful he would require worship. It is logical that any god of his salt would not require his subjects to flatter him with praise. He should not be so shallow.
Anyway, I still believe that reduction the wages of sin for mere acceptance Jesus is also a sin.
But Antony, Jesus death is not the end of His efforts on our behalf. He not only died but He also rose from the dead. So those who have been set free from the penalty of their sin have the hope of a new life in Jesus that is no longer slave to the sinful desires that plague all of humankind. Paul wrote, "Just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4) So we now have the risen Lord leading and guiding us to follow the example of His perfect life. The more that a follower of Jesus (that is a significant title) seeks Jesus' guidance on how to live the more victory he/she has over the sin that used to hold him/her captive.
I understand that from the standpoint of human nature it makes sense that a person who has received the forgiveness of sin has a blank cheque to live however nasty they want and can just claim, "God forgave me." But that is not the way that it works. When a person has been impacted by the extremes that God went to in order to restore relationship, there is a transformation that happens (part of the new life that Paul write about) and that old nature is replaced with a desire to do what is pleasing to God.
I think it is interesting the way you describe Jesus as a Scapegoat. You are probably doing that intentionally realizing that the term scapegoat actually has its origin in the Jewish rituals set out by God to prefigure what Jesus would eventually do hundreds of years later. On the Day of Atonement, the leaders of the people of Israel would go through a purification ritual and then take a goat and place their hands on the goat symbolically laying all the sins of the people on the head of the goat. God then instructed that they release the goat out into the wilderness symbolising that God had removed their sin.
That is exactly what Jesus has done and so Scapegoat is an entirely appropriate term to use. It was necessary because there is no other way for our sin to be dealt with aside from each of us living out the just sentence of rebelling against an infinitely perfect Creator which is eternal separation from His presence. But God loves us so much and He created us to be with Him for all of eternity so in order to deal with the sin of the world He gave Himself to be our scapegoat. In order to truly represent all of humanity the sacrifice had to be a human, but in order to pay the huge penalty for all of humanity the sacrifice had to have no limits, eternal. The only One who could fit that narrow description was God incarnate into human form. So God sent Jesus, the Son of God, who was one in nature with God the Father and God the Sprit but was unique in His person, and He became one of us. He still retained his full deity but He added to it His humanity. And so being fully God and fully human He was able to represent us all and at the same time be unlimited to deal with the penalty all of humanity's sins.
As I said before, God is not going to force that gift on you. If you don't think that it the only method of accounting for crimes of humanity you can come up with your own scheme or follow someone else's. But just know that you are rejecting the one and only means of salvation that God has planned out and put together. If He is the judge, don't you think His plan would be the one you would want to follow? Don't you see that rejecting His plan is just further rebellion against Him?
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Hi Jamie,
In your reply, you say that God sentences us for our crimes (including thought crimes too you say), but then our punishment is levied unto Jesus who seemingly is now a mere scapegoat for us. Is that the pinnacle of morality? Scapegoating?
This does not ring true as a great method of accounting for crimes against humanity, or others (as in the crimes of animal abuse, or rape of the earth).
If we scapegoat our sins with God, why have morality at all. Just cut to the chase and believe God exists, and live immorally. Yes, eat shellfish, and pigs. Work on the sabbath, don't marry your rape victim, and certainly blaspheme by treating the gospel as worthless as the paper it printed on. Blasphemy is supposed to be the ONLY unpardonable sin. Really. That seems a trifle overbearing and tyrannical. If Jesus accepts our punishment ,then immorality or morality are equatable and cancel each other out, and it is only faith in the unseen Lord that counts.
That is not a world view that is has any valid worth. It is self corrupting.
Well Antony, as David noted in one of his poems, "LORD, if you kept a record of our sins, who, O Lord, could ever survive?" (Psalm 130:3) Jesus made it clear that sin is not only the things that you do but it is also the thoughts in your mind and heart. He said, "You have heard it said that anyone who murders is subject to punishment, but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgement...You have heard it said 'Do not commit adultery' but I tell you anyone who has looked at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:21-22,27-28) And those are just a few of the statements that He made regarding how we miss God's standard of perfection. I don't know about you but I would have to echo David's words, "How could I stand?!"
You are right of course, remorse does not make innocence, but the plan of God is not saving people because they feel bad. He executes the full measure of justice by sentencing us based on our crimes, but then He sends His Son to be the recipient of that punishment so that we no longer have to face that ourselves. And in return for taking our sin, Jesus gives to us His perfection. It is an unbelievable transaction: one that we neither deserve nor could ever pay for. God does it out of His love for us--a love that has no limits!
But it is not a love that God forces on anyone. If you choose to face God on your own merits Antony He will not force you to receive Jesus' free gift. He will "reward" you with the consequences of the things you have done, the things you have not done which you should have done and the things that you thought. You have said you don't need Him and so He will give you the desire of your heart--the just dues of your rebellion against Him-- eternal separation from Him.
I really hope you don't go that route Antony. I pray that you discover for yourself the amazing love of God and surrender yourself to Him. It is a humbling thing to admit that you can't do it on your own, that you need someone outside of yourself. I know it is a scary thing to realize that there is a God in Heaven who has made everything including you and has authority over every aspect of your life. I know that it goes against everything inside of you to submit to that authority and surrender to His plan for you. But I also know that He is good and loving and His plan is the best plan for your life and there is no greater freedom than to allow yourself to be under His control and purpose. I pray that you don't ignore His truth to long and miss the opportunity to receive it for yourself.
So Lord, I pray that You would help Antony to see and know. Amen!
SA
Shelley Anderson
13 years ago
Well! That was a great message, as it cleared me of one that says they do not believe in God. I am saved and am very proud of it and devote my time with Jesus everyday.
AB
Antony burt
13 years ago
Why wouldn't I want to judged by my actions? Please do so! Remorse does not make innocence, lack of crime does.
JW
Jeff Wheeldon
13 years ago
I appreciate your point Jamie, but I hope that you can appreciate that the verse that you wrote out does not contain the word (or even the concept) of sacrifice or substitutionary atonement anywhere in it. If you see it there, you've read it in, because it's not stated. The most that could be said in that regard is that our sins were "nailed to Christ's cross" - but again, all of the metaphors we use here are related to Christ's cross, so there's nothing in this verse that requires or even implies anything about the sacrificial system.
And again, all of the metaphors we use for Christ assume his victory over sin and death, just as any significance derived from the medal ceremony you described must also include the notion of Bolt's victory. There's no watering down of that victory if one chooses to describe it differently: you might even find that an alternative way of describing it (say, describing it as the victory of someone overcoming the poverty of Jamaica to defeat so many wealthier countries' best athletes), far from watering it down, concentrates that sense of victory even further!
For example, I find that the sacrificial system metaphor speaks specifically about payment for individual sins - and as it's usually preached, payment for MY sins. A major victory, no doubt, particularly when applied to all of humanity for all time! But the notion of Jesus as taking up his cross in solidarity with the victims of the Powers still contains the notion of overcoming sin, but in defeating the Powers Jesus also frees us from the power of sin, not just the punishment for it - a greater victory! And furthermore, his solidarity with me is just as powerful as his substitution for me, but it resonates with me further because I feel like I'm the victim of sin just as much as I'm the perpetrator of it (and I don't think many will deny that) - so when Christ takes up the cross, it's not just God taking my place, but it's God SHARING my experience of sin - again, a very powerful thing! And where the sacrificial metaphor sees Jesus as defeating sin and evil on my behalf, the metaphor of victory over the Powers actually gives me an example to follow in that metaphor - I can participate in Christ's victory, not simply vicariously (as in the sacrificial metaphor, because I can't actually die for anyone else's sin) but actually (because I can follow Jesus' lead in taking on the Powers, as indeed he commands me to!).
Surely you can't say that this alternative description of what happened on the cross is any less potent than the sacrificial, substitutionary atonement model! If it were merely a watered down version, it wouldn't be compelling at all, and I certainly wouldn't be advocating it. I'm advocating it (and others) because it is rich, powerful, compelling, and in our context, actually more relevant than the story of animal sacrifice I grew up with. And once again, it's just as biblical as the sacrificial system model, it just hasn't been ingrained in us as much.
Cheers,
Jeff
I am not sure that you can separate the event and the significance so easily Jeff. It was just a few months ago that much of the world watched as Usain Bolt stood on a podium and received the gold medal for winning the Olympic 100 meter sprint. The event was that a medal was placed around his neck and the national anthem of Jamaica was played. Now a person could speculate on all kinds of metaphors of the significance of that moment but if you miss the primary significance of that event--namely Usain Bolt being acknowledged as the winner of that race--you have missed its true and best significance.
The same is true for the cross of Jesus: God repeatedly, through the biblical authors, points to the significance of the death of Jesus as a payment for the sin of humanity. Even the verse that you referred to regarding how the powers and principalities were made a spectacle of is prefaced by, "You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ. He forgave all our sins. He canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to Christ's cross. In this way, God disarmed the power and principalities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross of Christ." (Colossians 2:13-15) To miss that sacrificial aspect of the cross of Jesus is to dilute what happened that day on Golgotha and its eternal impact on the lives of those who follow Jesus.
JW
Jeff Wheeldon
13 years ago
Jamie,
There's a difference between an event and its significance. The actual event is that Jesus was arrested, tried, and (wrongfully) crucified. The understanding of that event as Jesus taking the place of a willing sacrifice for sins is not WHAT happened in a literal sense, but rather the significance of what happened.
As another example from scripture, take Eve eating fruit from the tree of knowledge: the event is someone eating fruit, but the significance is rebellion against God, the first human sin, and the fall of all subsequent humanity! There's an awful lot of significance in that event; in fact, the significance is far more important than the actual event itself.
The thing with the crucifixion of Jesus (which most certainly happened) is that there are many different interpretations of its significance. In the example you give from Hebrews, the writer is applying two different levels of significance, both associated with the sacrificial system: Jesus as a sacrifice, and Jesus as the Priest who performs the sacrifice. Now, Jesus wasn't actually a priest in his life; he was never consecrated as such, never performed the temple sacrifices, and wasn't even from the right lineage (an argument that the writer to the Hebrews brings up too!). But in regard to the significance of his person and spiritual ministry, it is fitting to talk about Jesus as a High Priest of Israel in a letter to Hebrews, just as it is also fitting to speak of him as a sacrifice in that context, even though Jesus actually didn't fit either of those roles in any literal sense. It is the significance of the event that is metaphorical, not the event itself, but this in no way makes that significance worth any less.
But just because the significance is deeply true doesn't make it the best understanding of the event in any given context. While the sacrificial image of Jesus is both true and important, it is much better suited to ancient Hebrews than to postmodern North Americans. People need to be familiar with the event before they can really grasp its significance, and even though the significance of sacrificing animals is good (purging sin in order to have relationship with a holy God), the event itself (slaughtering animals in front of people) is now considered barbaric. If people can't get past the event to the significance of that event, then the real message (being the significance) falls on deaf ears.
Now, with that being the case we can very well make a push to educate people on the real significance of ritualistically slaughtering animals, but it would probably be much easier and more fitting to focus on one of the many other significances that the New Testament highlights. For example, Paul speaks frequently about how, on the cross, Christ defeated the Powers and Principalities (i.e. The Man, unjust authority). He does so by "making a spectacle of them", usually interpreted as revealing their lack of moral authority and justice, and thus undermining them, setting free everyone who was abused by that unjust authority. That's something that people in a post-Occupy world can really sink their teeth into, and it's just as valid as the understanding of the cross as sacrifice. In fact, this metaphor draws on the imagery and significance of the Exodus as well, and is very popular in the global south where many people still live under dictatorships, and Liberation Theology is very popular there because of this emphasis.
Another example is to compare Jesus on the cross to the bronze snake that Moses made to save people from snake bites. In that story in the Pentateuch, people sinned against God, and because of this God sent snakes among them as punishment. Then God told Moses to make a serpent out of bronze, and lift it up on a pole so that people could see it - and anyone who looked at the bronze snake lived even after being bitten. This comparison is made in the NT, and it speaks just as much about sin and its consequences, and the grace of God, as the sacrificial lamb metaphor does. Like the sacrificial lamb metaphor, though, outside of the ancient Jewish context it might not go over so well - it portrays God as the type of person who sends snakes to kill people who disobey him. Without an audience who accepts the authority of the Pentateuch, it might be hard to get the point of the story across (the point of the story being that there are real dangers associated with sin, and that God provides a way for us to be saved from them).
The New Testament has many different metaphors and comparisons to describe the significance of what happened on the cross. Some of them are very useful in this present context, while others are counter-productive in evangelism. All of them are true, but some of them are easier to preach. As long as we're speaking truly about what Christ has done on the cross, it's not inappropriate for us to come up with new metaphors to describe what happened on that glorious day - after all, that's really what most of the New Testament was trying to do, and Christians have been doing it ever since.
But we can't forget that all of these understandings of the significance of the cross really ARE metaphors, no matter how true they are; they all break down at some point, and none of them are supreme over all others. They are each useful in their place, and I'm not convinced that the sacrifice of animals is a fitting or useful metaphor in this context anymore. I certainly don't believe that using different metaphors in its place somehow dilutes the significance of what happened on the cross, because however we understand it, the significance of the event means nothing if it does not actually represent God's concrete action to reconcile us to himself; and he's done that already, regardless of which metaphor we use to describe it. THAT is what I want to be able to communicate to people, and if my metaphors are getting in the way, I'll use different ones until I find one that connects.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying Jeff. Was Jesus actually crucified on the cross? If He was then the statements the Biblical authors make about Jesus being our sacrifice are not metaphorical. "For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Hebrews 7:26-27) The verb used here is active meaning Jesus was the one who did the offering of Himself, indicating as Michael has pointed out that Jesus was a willing sacrifice on our behalf. There is nothing metaphorical about how His death paid the penalty for our sins.
Now if the idea of sacrifice is increasingly foreign in our culture it is important that we use the Bible to help bring meaning to the concept for people today. But removing the image because it is offensive to people does them no good in understanding the seriousness of their sin and the extent that God has gone to for us out of His love. Peter wrote that Jesus is the precious corner stone placed by God, which is cherished by those who believe but is rejected and becomes a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to those who do not believe (1Peter 2:6-8). The only way that we can change Jesus from being offensive to people who do not want to put their trust in Him is to change who He is and what He has done, but then they won't be putting their trust in Jesus. It will be a man-made façade that masks human efforts to save ourselves. Just like Sara points out, "They are the ones guilty of their transgressions and them and them alone should answer for it." What the Gospel points out is that they cannot pay for it. They are completely dependent on God to pay that penalty for them. If they seek to pay for the penalty on their own they will miss the wonderful gift that is available to all who believe and trust in Jesus' sacrifice.
MH
Michael Horner
13 years ago
Sara
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this post. I have to say though that I think you are glossing over way too quickly what I wrote earlier about the alleged injustice of Jesus paying for our sins on the cross. I wrote in an earlier comment that, "once we understand that Jesus willingly paid the penalty for our sins on the cross, the charge of "divine child abuse" evaporates."
Speaking about your atheist friends, you responded with, "They find it repugnant for an innocent to pay for someone else's crime and certainly not theirs. They are the ones guilty of their transgressions and them and them alone should answer for it. It doesn't matter to them that Jesus was a willing sacrifice. They steadfastly believe he shouldn't pay for what they do wrong."
The point is it should matter to them that Jesus was a willing sacrifice. This not only removes the basis for the charge of injustice to Jesus, it highlights his love for each of us. This was the point of my post. This is what is so magnificent about the gospel!
Now, if someone refuses to accept this free gift of forgiveness offered by Jesus on their behalf because they say justice demands that they take personal responsibility and pay the just penalty themselves, then what more can God do? If they insist on paying the penalty themselves because of some false sense of pride, then God can only do what you claim he would not do, and that is allow people to have their just punishment, which is separation from him.
All your more recent comments flow from your conclusion (mistaken conclusion I believe) that Jesus paying for our sins is fundamentally unjust. But I do not think that you should feel forced to that conclusion. Nothing you have said entails that conclusion, especially given Jesus' willingly paying for our sins because of his great love for each of us.
Jamie,
Like I said, that misrepresenting in ontology of what happened as Jeff stated, is what, rightfully, makes not just an atheist but anyone question and possibly reject it. The why it is presented by the majority of pastors and leaders of the church of many if not all denominations is the metaphoric. That metaphoric emphasis and telling, at closer examination, does contradict the message of a just and loving God whom someone should embrace for salvation. It shows God to be a hypocrite when he isn't. It also makes someone go back and question everything else. We are taught through a faith to abhor injustice. The rejecting of the scapegoat is rejecting injustice. Just because in the past it was rationalized doesn't make it right and the atheistic argument points that out. That comment you stated also leads to much worse representation. It's, in essence, saying that God holds humanity to a higher standard than he holds himself. Again, an injustice. The "it's God and he can do what he wants just because he is God" argument is weak and feeble at best. He shows God to be a self absorbed tyrant functioning on the mentality of a two year old. That should be insulting to all of us to hold that position and use that argument. The atheist is only looking for consistency in teaching in accordance to the character of God. Teaching that metaphoric sacrificial scapegoat of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins in the way it has been what has done damage to our faith. Saying there must have been a reason for it therefore it should just be accepted and not questioned also undermines morality itself. It removes the value of morality and puts all favor on obedience to authority. It's saying authority should be exalted just because they are in position of authority. History has or should have taught us the result of that blind obedience to authority just for authority's sake. Authority is important but it shouldn't be assumed right by default alone. That's what the atheistic argument should teach us. Instead of that gut kick reaction of feeling upset and offended by their ejection, LISTEN, truly listen to what they are saying, the content of their point of view. The content on their objection of this particular issue is about justice and personal accountability and responsibility in regards of how Jesus's death is represented and interpreted. No one with a shred of conscience and morality can genuinely and sincerely dispute their objection.
JW
Jeff Wheeldon
13 years ago
Indeed Jamie, that does seem to be a problem. Girard sees this as an issue of Israel projecting scapegoating practice on to God - as indeed, the practice was around a long time before the Exodus in other cultures. This necessitates a lower view of scripture, but it need not be so.
God frequently uses the practices of cultures as a way to communicate with humans, later revealing that he does not approve of such practices. We see this in the sacrificial system itself, which is now abolished. We frequently see God using the myths of other cultures (e.g. the creation myth), and modifying them for his own purposes. We also frequently see these things utilized in literary senses, as metaphors or hyperbolically.
The cross is easy to understand in comparison to a sacrifice, but that's not actually what happened - it was an execution. The metaphor of sacrifice is useful, but it's not the only one that is, and because it is increasingly foreign to our society and notions of propriety (rightfully so, I think), perhaps it's not even a very useful metaphor.
Overall, I think we must be careful not to elevate a metaphorical description of what happened to the realm of ontology. Like Paul, we're trying to make sense of the notion that the execution of Jesus of Nazareth somehow saves us all. THAT is what happened, and everything else is merely literary and rhetorical attempts to make sense of it. As soon as we say "Jesus IS a sacrificial lamb" in an ontological rather than metaphorical way, we've gone too far.
And yet the scapegoat is an image that God created to prefigure the role that Messiah would play in the salvation history of the world. As a part of Yom Kippur, the sins of the people were symbolically laid on the head of the scapegoat. Similarly, "LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all...But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief...I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners." (Isaiah 53:6,10,12) It seems prudent to me that if God uses a specific image there is good reason for it no matter how it might offend our sensibilities.
