God died for his children

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

jeffhughes

New Member
Jul 27, 2008
120
0
0
36
(tim_from_pa;58359)
As for being tortured eternally, actually at this board we do not believe that. We believe that after a fair chance that one will be resurrected to be judged, and then cast into the lake of fire where they are extinguished as the book of II Esdras says. The book of Revelation and the rest of the bible clearly states that these people consciously and willingly disobeyed God. If they don't want a part of Him, then He is merely giving them what they want and that's not unfair.
Either way, it still doesn't say much for God. It's either "follow me or I'll torture you forever," or "follow me or I'll 'extinguish' you". It makes God perhaps a bit more loving, but not much so. Loving people show forgiveness. Unloving people show vengeance. Surely loving people could not be more loving than an all-loving God, could they?
 

Shornaal

New Member
May 20, 2008
77
0
0
36
(jeffhughes;58643)
Either way, it still doesn't say much for God. It's either "follow me or I'll torture you forever," or "follow me or I'll 'extinguish' you". It makes God perhaps a bit more loving, but not much so. Loving people show forgiveness. Unloving people show vengeance. Surely loving people could not be more loving than an all-loving God, could they?
Now i'm not a believer so so this is from an ethical point of viewNonexistense isn't cruel, you once didn't exist and now you do, would you rather have never existed at all?Existing is a privilege offered by God and for the right to exist you must follow his rules.Remember that as unexsisting you can't feel or remember so it's not like you are suffering from it since you would have neither nerves or the brain to feel anything.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
I concur with Shornaal. In eternity past I did not exist, either, at least not as a conscious being, but it did not seem like an eternity. I'm here now. So, how is that cruel? If one does not exist, there is not time, space or consciousness, just nothingness. "Time", even "eternity" means nothing.
 

jeffhughes

New Member
Jul 27, 2008
120
0
0
36
(Shornaal;58656)
Now i'm not a believer so so this is from an ethical point of viewNonexistense isn't cruel, you once didn't exist and now you do, would you rather have never existed at all?Existing is a privilege offered by God and for the right to exist you must follow his rules.Remember that as unexsisting you can't feel or remember so it's not like you are suffering from it since you would have neither nerves or the brain to feel anything.
I didn't intend to say that "unexistence" was cruel. However, if an all-loving God is mixed with an all-powerful God, that implies that he has the power and the will to create a world that is both free from sin and still allows free will to exist. Whether the punishment for breaking the rules is extinguishment or torture, the fact is that an all-powerful God could have avoided either option in the first place. Heck, Christians believe that God himself has free will and yet he does not and cannot sin, so why couldn't he make us the same way? Then there would be no need to go through the whole Adam-and-Eve process, subjecting people to thousands of years of suffering, death, and "extinguishment." That is what an all-loving God would do. Therefore, extinguishment, while more loving, is still not the most loving option.
 

Shornaal

New Member
May 20, 2008
77
0
0
36
(jeffhughes;58673)
I didn't intend to say that "unexistence" was cruel. However, if an all-loving God is mixed with an all-powerful God, that implies that he has the power and the will to create a world that is both free from sin and still allows free will to exist. Whether the punishment for breaking the rules is extinguishment or torture, the fact is that an all-powerful God could have avoided either option in the first place. Heck, Christians believe that God himself has free will and yet he does not and cannot sin, so why couldn't he make us the same way? Then there would be no need to go through the whole Adam-and-Eve process, subjecting people to thousands of years of suffering, death, and "extinguishment." That is what an all-loving God would do. Therefore, extinguishment, while more loving, is still not the most loving option.
If he were not to extinguish those who don't follow his laws the alternative would be to force them to change which would deny them their free will.As for suffering and death, if we all would follow the rule of treating others as we want to be treated we wouldn't have the amount of death and suffering we have today. People need to learn that death is a natural part of life and not blow it out of proportion.
 

jeffhughes

New Member
Jul 27, 2008
120
0
0
36
(Shornaal;58676)
If he were not to extinguish those who don't follow his laws the alternative would be to force them to change which would deny them their free will.
But what I'm saying is that that whole problem could have been avoided in the first place! The Bible says that we were created in God's image. And Christians believe that God has free will - can choose to do or not do things - and yet, he will never sin because it's not in his "character."If God could create us any way he wanted, could he not have simply created us the same way - with free will, yet without the character to sin? Then he wouldn't have to go about making these rules, and extinguishing people, and punishing, seeing suffering going on, etc. He wouldn't have to deny anyone their free will, nor would he have to make rules and punish people. (Shornaal;58676)
As for suffering and death, if we all would follow the rule of treating others as we want to be treated we wouldn't have the amount of death and suffering we have today. People need to learn that death is a natural part of life and not blow it out of proportion.
True. But that has little to do with God, and much to do with us as humans.
 

Shornaal

New Member
May 20, 2008
77
0
0
36
(jeffhughes;58754)
True. But that has little to do with God, and much to do with us as humans.
But still we blame God for it.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
Did we ever notice that the laws of physics are such that any non-being action cannot transgress them? Yet, I could sit here all day and ask "why" and still find some sort of fault.Not to brush this aside, but there's a point, not only in religious belief, but scientific as well that the question "why" cannot always be answered. We can answer "why" basing our conclusion on known theorems, but there's a point where there are basic postulates that cannot be proven and all scientific ideologies are born from those few postulates. It is these postulates that we cannot answer "why"The same is with God. We can go around all day asking why God did or did not do this or that, and all points seem to be good ones. However, it boils down to working with what we have. Yes, there may be areas that God seems unjust, not because He is evil per se, but did not prevent evil. On the other hand, He did provide a merciful way to escape which justifies, at least somewhat, what God does.I'm a little more pragmatic. Like in math or science I say that given a situation exists (whether or not I agree with it) then one has to do this or that to remedy it. In Christianity, even though we do not like or agree with the given situation (that's the way the universe is), we still have a remedy and for that I am thankful.
 

jeffhughes

New Member
Jul 27, 2008
120
0
0
36
(Shornaal;58761)
But still we blame God for it.
Well, as I no longer believe in God, I no longer blame God for it. So to me, the point is moot.(tim_from_pa;58769)
Did we ever notice that the laws of physics are such that any non-being action cannot transgress them? Yet, I could sit here all day and ask "why" and still find some sort of fault.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, as we are not dealing with physics or science here, but rather theology/philosophy.(tim_from_pa;58769)
Not to brush this aside, but there's a point, not only in religious belief, but scientific as well that the question "why" cannot always be answered. We can answer "why" basing our conclusion on known theorems, but there's a point where there are basic postulates that cannot be proven and all scientific ideologies are born from those few postulates. It is these postulates that we cannot answer "why"
That is true to a certain extent. However, in my experience, science tends to try and minimize those basic postulates, whereas religion tends to write off whatever they can't explain as a basic postulate, so that they can keep their desired conclusions. In other words, if we can't explain why or how God is all-loving, then we'll just accept that he is so that we can keep the desired conclusion of an all-loving God intact. Because we like that. It gives us warm fuzzies inside.As you progress through the mess of Christian apologetics, you find more stuff being written off to either a) free will or
cool.gif
a matter of faith. While I have no problem with accepting things on faith, I do have a problem with accepting inherent contradictions on faith. I can accept the concept that perhaps an all-loving and omnipotent being exists and created this earth, but when these qualities create a contradiction with what we see in the world around us, I think we have a problem that cannot just be resolved by writing it off as "a matter of faith."(tim_from_pa;58769)
The same is with God. We can go around all day asking why God did or did not do this or that, and all points seem to be good ones. However, it boils down to working with what we have.
What we have is a problem reconciling the essential qualities of God with what we know of the world around us. This is not so much a matter of "why" but rather "how". How could an all-loving and all-powerful God let evil exist? If you are willing to forgo one of those qualities, then very well. But as I suspect you are not, we are faced with a contradiction. Unless you have a different definition of "love" that I am not aware of...(tim_from_pa;58769)
I'm a little more pragmatic.
Then you should appreciate that it makes a lot more sense to simply not allow evil in the first place by creating the world/people differently than to allow it to happen and then have to fix it thousands of years later.(tim_from_pa;58769)
Yes, there may be areas that God seems unjust, not because He is evil per se, but did not prevent evil. On the other hand, He did provide a merciful way to escape which justifies, at least somewhat, what God does....Like in math or science I say that given a situation exists (whether or not I agree with it) then one has to do this or that to remedy it. In Christianity, even though we do not like or agree with the given situation (that's the way the universe is), we still have a remedy and for that I am thankful.
Remedies are used to fix a problem - correct? Let's agree on terms, first. The dictionary.com definitions give ideas of correction, curing, redressing a wrong, or restoring to the natural condition. In other words, making the wrong way right. However, this would tend to say that God made a mistake. If God is omniscient and can see the future, then he could clearly see the results of what he had created. If you agree that Jesus' death was a remedy, then you are agreeing that God screwed up, made a mistake, and had to correct it. But ultimately, he knew what was going to happen in the first place, so he should have been able to make it happen differently right from the very beginning...
 

johnchao

New Member
Jun 27, 2007
183
0
0
60
Concerning "GOD died for his children":GOD did not die, but the flesh of Jesus was crucified. And on the cross Jesus the flesh cried" my GOD, my GOD, why have you forsaken me?"(Mt27:45-46, Mk1533-34). Jesus the flesh was saying, "Father, I commend my spirit into your hand" (Lk23:46). The Father of Jesus the flesh was also the Father of his disciples, and the GOD of Jesus the flesh was also the GOD of his disciples (Jn20:17). In the long history of Christianity the flesh of Jesus was taken as GOD or a mixed one: both man and GOD, dating back to the period of Emperor Constantine, who wanted to promote himself to the position of a Savior on account of his achievement to the Christian faith and therefore made Jesus the flesh as GOD, for there couldn't be two Saviors. It's also why Catholics today still worship Mary as the mother of GOD. Could Mary give birth to a GOD?GOD is spirit (Jn4:24), and YAHVEH GOD is the breath of life (Gen2:7), and the breath of life is the Spirit (Jn20:21-22), and fills heaven and earth (Jer23:23-24). Jesus the flesh was the Word that became flesh (Jn1:14). The flesh of Jesus was speaking in the Holy Spirit (Lk10:21), and it was the Father who commanded him what to say and what to speak (Jn12:47-50), and the Father lived in him doing His work (Jn14:10). And what Jesus spoke was the word of GOD (Lk5:1) and the word (Jn12:47-48). The word was GOD (Jn1:1-2). That's to say, what Jesus the flesh spoke on earth was GOD, but the flesh of Jesus was not GOD. Jesus the flesh, after resurrection, still had bones and flesh (Lk24:38-40).The word was GOD, but “the flesh counts for nothing” Jesus said (Jn6:62-63).The Bible also tells us that Jesus was the word from of old (Pr8:22-32, Jn1:1-2). So, Jesus the word is GOD. So, Jesus and the Father are one (Jn10:30). Jesus the word of GOD our Savior is GOD (Ti2:10, Rev19:11-16). The Son of GOD is the word of GOD (Heb11:3, 1:1-2).When we understand the difference between Jesus the flesh and Jesus the word, it will be easy for us now to understand "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Mt28:19). For example, Paul speaks in the Holy Spirit (Ac13:9), and what he speaks is the word of GOD (Ac13:44-45), and the word of GOD is Jesus the Son of GOD, and the word of GOD is also spirit (Eph6:17, Jn3:34) and God is spirit. So, the Three are one. The doctrine of men has been producing a few sensible analogies, yet none is satisfactory throughout history. The whole Bible has been opened now, for the time is near (Rev22:10)!Blessings to all!
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
If you agree that Jesus' death was a remedy, then you are agreeing that God screwed up, made a mistake, and had to correct it. But ultimately, he knew what was going to happen in the first place, so he should have been able to make it happen differently right from the very beginning...
No, Jeff. The bible teaches Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And likewise, those who believe were chosen from the foundation of the world. That's predestination.Yet, there is free choice and we are still responsible for our actions. I'll let you ponder that one for a night.The things you deem contradictory in Christian faith I see as merely defining the limits of reason based on your senses.This is why I NEVER get involved with other Christians debating free choice and predestination other than to say they both exist. I can tell by your understanding of logic that they cannot and therefore is ludicrous. I can tell you they do.As for being pragmatic, what I meant was that I may not agree with the way God allowed things to happen, but my myopic understanding should not be the basis for judging God, either as God works out of space and time. What I was saying was that I have to work with what I got whether I like it or not. Likewise, I can have faith in God whether I like Him or not.
 

jeffhughes

New Member
Jul 27, 2008
120
0
0
36
(tim_from_pa;58934)
No, Jeff. The bible teaches Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And likewise, those who believe were chosen from the foundation of the world. That's predestination.
Ahh, I see. So God planned to have Adam and Eve screw up, sin, and cause the needless death and suffering of millions of people. It was all part of God's plan. And somehow that justifies him? Look - if God's plan all along was for Jesus to die, then that's fine. As God, that's his prerogative. But you can't tell me that such a God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, because one of those options has to go. By knowing the qualities of God, we can know his actions. And for an all-powerful and all-loving God, planning to have humans sin, punishing them for that sin, and then sending his own Son to die to somehow remove that sin - well, that sounds ludicrous. If God is all-powerful, then he could have simply made a different plan, one that didn't involve all that dying, suffering, and "extinguishment." Since he did not, that at least makes a very strong argument against his "all-loving" quality.(tim_from_pa;58934)
Yet, there is free choice and we are still responsible for our actions. I'll let you ponder that one for a night.
I had a response for this, but in the interest of making my post shorter, I have deleted it. Free will is somewhat of a tangent from the discussion.(tim_from_pa;58934)
The things you deem contradictory in Christian faith I see as merely defining the limits of reason based on your senses.
Such reasoning is not based on the senses whatsoever. That is why it is called reasoning. It is the process of logic, not the process of perception.(tim_from_pa;58934)
This is why I NEVER get involved with other Christians debating free choice and predestination other than to say they both exist. I can tell by your understanding of logic that they cannot and therefore is ludicrous. I can tell you they do.
And on what do you base your claim? Because when you throw out reason as a justification for your beliefs, then you, by definition, are believing something entirely unreasonable. Generally that's seen as a bad thing. I could tell you that I believe that God both does and does not exist. You would call that a contradiction, and tell me it's not possible. But if I say, "God told me that he does and does not exist," then suddenly it's okay? Divine revelation, whether from God himself, or through the pages of Scripture, do not deny the need for reason and logic. Otherwise you base your beliefs on whatever you feel is most comforting to you.(tim_from_pa;58934)
As for being pragmatic, what I meant was that I may not agree with the way God allowed things to happen, but my myopic understanding should not be the basis for judging God, either as God works out of space and time. What I was saying was that I have to work with what I got whether I like it or not. Likewise, I can have faith in God whether I like Him or not.
Let me try to produce an argument, and then we can discuss this further. You are essentially saying that "God knows best, we may not always understand why he does things", correct? Let me produce my counter-argument.First off, if God is truly what we think he is, then yes, you're right. God may have a better understanding of the world than we do. However, at the same time, he has given us insight into who and what he is in the Bible. This is where the concept of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God comes from.Now, let's say that I know you're somewhat environmentally conscious. Based on that information, I could make a reasonable assumption that if you had some garbage, you would throw it in a trash can instead of littering on the ground. But I might be wrong, of course. It's just a general assumption to work with. However, if I know that you are extremely environmentally conscious, my assumption grows - I will be more sure that you would, indeed, throw out that trash. If I know you are the founder and leader of Greenpeace, I could place quite high stakes that you will throw trash in the garbage instead of littering. To do so would simply be out of character.In other words, as one's qualities grow more extreme, we can more reasonably assume that one will act on these qualities. In the case of God, however, we have the absolute most extreme case of qualities. God is not just sometimes loving, he is ALL-loving. God is not just pretty strong, he is ALL-powerful. God isn't just a bright guy, he is ALL-knowing. And one more quality that Christians know about - God is NEVER-changing. So we can place absolute certainty that God will always, always, always act according to his character. If given the choice between something loving and not loving, he will pick the loving option. What's more, if given the choice between something loving and something more loving, he will choose the more loving option.My argument thus far, then, is this:1. As qualities become more extreme, we can be more confidence that the person with these qualities will act according to them.2. God displays the most extreme qualities possible.3. Therefore, we can place ultimate confidence that he will act according to these qualities.I'm sure you agree with all of this so far. If not, then show me where I have gone wrong.The problem, however, is that although God is all-knowing, we, unfortunately, are not. Therefore, we have limited knowledge of "the big picture," so to speak. Therefore, we may mistakenly conclude that God acted against his character, when really this was not the case. HOWEVER, I don't feel that this objection is justified. Why? Let me explain.While we do have but a small glimpse into the timeline, God has, thankfully, given us quite a view. Christians believe that the Bible gives us incredible insight into God's plan for our lives and indeed for the whole of human history. We can see right from the beginning of time all the way up until, at the very least, Jesus. He tells us quite clearly his plans and his actions in human history. To say then, that we are ignorant of God's "big picture view" is simply unjustified. We do have God's view. We even have a glimpse, some would say, of the future, where God's plan is for Jesus to return, judge the nations, and set up his eternal kingdom. So, in other words, we see God's view from beginning to endless end - we see right from the beginning of time to the very end, narrated at least indirectly by God himself. True, we will never have the mind of God, but we know his character, and we know his plan. If the two contradict, then we can determine, quite reasonably, that something is amiss.Here is where I would claim that there is, indeed, a problem. For we know that God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and yet his plan shows him to be less than that. If we know these characteristics, and these characteristics are extreme, then we can know with absolute certainty what God would do in any given circumstance, and we can know what kind of plan God would produce. This plan, filled with death, pain, suffering, and horrors unimaginable, simply does not line up - redemption or not. At least one of the qualities of God must be rejected in order to bring the two back into alignment. If God is not all-loving, then we can see that his plan included non-loving elements. If God is not all-knowing, then we can say that he didn't know the outcome of his actions. If God is not all-powerful, then we can say that he was helpless to change some crucial part of the plan. But to try to accept all of these qualities, and yet try to force this plan to fit into these qualities, is simply an untenable conclusion. It is a conclusion based not in reason, but in comfort. You want to believe that God has a plan for all of us, and that he loves us and wants what is best for us, and that things will be better in the future. But this is, quite simply, an unreasonable belief.Your other option, then, is to throw out reason entirely. And that's up to you, I suppose. But reason is an important part of our lives, something that we rely on every day, and, well, the Bible also tells us that God made us and endowed us with reason. If God has given us something he wants us to reject, then it almost makes him malicious in nature. Reason is a useful tool, and for God to want us to reject that makes him, well, unreasonable, I suppose. The Bible itself tries to be reasonable, even if it fails. So, if you choose to reject reason, good luck to you. You'll only be fooling yourself....