Analogy

[Strathos]

We were not created to live eternally. Jesus lets us do so anyway.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We were not created to live eternally. Jesus lets us do so anyway.

I'm sorry...those two sentences appear contradictory.

It's like saying "cars weren't made to fly...but occasionally I'll go fly mine anyway."

If we weren't "created to live eternally" how can anything "let us live eternally"? Either it's something we can do or it isn't.

 

[Dave-W]

No. What I'm getting at is that God set up the system. Could he, in theory, have set it up differently? Like, in such a way that we don't require "salvation" to avoid a fate worse than death?

Of course He could have set it up differently. He could have created a universe without gravity; or the rule that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space a the same time; or the need for us to breathe oxygen.

But He set it up the way He did because that is the way HE wants it.

To come in after the fact and think it should be some other way is like saying "I do not like the fact that I have to breathe; or the fact that if I walk off a cliff, I plunge to my injury or death; or that I cannot walk thru walls."

The need for salvation is as real and immutable as the laws of nature.

 

[Dave-W]

There is no other way because God made it so that there is no other way, correct?

Correct. In the same sense as HE made it so there was no other way to keep a planet in its orbit without gravity.

 

[Dave-W]

We were not created to live eternally.

Actually, we were. God is an eternal being and we are created in HIS image.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For me the substitution of "christ" for "sinful self" is an idealised (or representational) form of dramatic conscienciousness, in the face of our morally finite and therefore harmful ways.

God became man theory speaks of Christ as man and God: harmed because we are finite, and yet God lives in us as imago dei. So God harm is self harm, but necessary because the will of God is perfect yet also unattainable, transcendent. And yet we are all "in Gods image".

We must sin, I suppose, bacause we are not God.

Yet in sinning we harm (or offend against) God. And therefore against man too.

The noumenal (transcendent God) is made immanent in the gospel nattative, made phenomenal and accessible to sense and empirical man, and the "gravity of the mass" ( pointed out in the last supper and crucifiction) unvelils God's presence as "a man (or entity) of sorrrows". The curtain of the temple it torn. We glimpse the wounded healer.

Thus the difference with the playground is, mere humans are sinful whereas Christ "represents God in the empirical domain". In the human there is always sin, so the tragedy of the crucifiction anywhere else would not be so stark.

Also the crucifiction is a free act. God became man freely, and thus became exposed in the finite in somatic form, instead of being wounded at a distance.

Its in the tragic man-god, that the true reality of sin becomes exposed. I think it goes like this: Christians become tragic hero's in substitutionary identification with Christ. The sinful man sees his sin, and repents, and identifies with the victim ("takes sides") but is made clean by this idealised yet practically unattainable role.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak: atonement is symbolised and spiritualised because the perfection law is practically unattainable. Thus the act of faith is an act of will, and not a corporal act. It is a primarily duty of the heart, rather than a duty of the limbs (to borrow from Chovot Helavavot) . Or maybe a "somatic" one, a duty of the whole self.

I am not exactly a Christian though I can understand this way of thinking - if the theology is right?

 

[The Cadet]

Ahh, and the answer to that one is no, that is something God cannot do (don't tell anyone I said that ... kidding )

The reason is that God cannot act against His own nature which is holy, righteous and just, not even a little bit. He is not like us in that. If there was another possible way, that didn't include needing to send His Son to die for us, I have no doubt He would have used it.

...But hell is a complete perversion of justice. It takes the necessarily finite sin that a human commits in their lifetime, and transforms it into an infinite punishment. Not only that, but sacrificing someone else for one's own sin is also a complete perversion of justice. If I did something wrong, then someone taking the fall for me does not make me "absolved", either of my own conscience nor the guilt for my crime. We understand these things in human morality; to claim that as a matter of divine morality it is somehow "beyond" us is nonsense. You want justice? A temporary hell, delivered to those who have sinned in proportion to their sin, and having merely to do with works, not faith. That would be just. Any being with powers akin to God's should be able to change it.

Of course He could have set it up differently. He could have created a universe without gravity; or the rule that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space a the same time; or the need for us to breathe oxygen.

But He set it up the way He did because that is the way HE wants it.

You two should debate about this point.

But okay, so God wants infinite punishment for finite crime. He wants it not to matter if you were a good person or not. He wants Ted Bundy to get to heaven, and Norman Borlaug to burn in hell.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think very highly of that god.

To come in after the fact and think it should be some other way is like saying "I do not like the fact that I have to breathe; or the fact that if I walk off a cliff, I plunge to my injury or death; or that I cannot walk thru walls."

The need for salvation is as real and immutable as the laws of nature.

Well... not quite. See, the thing missing in this comparison is that we don't typically consider the laws of nature "mutable". But we're talking about something someone actually could change! Your God could in theory change this situation. We can't change it, but we're talking about something or someone who can. It's more like citizens complaining to their government about the fact that there's not enough food - they can't fix it, but their government probably could. Now how would you refer to such a government, which quickly, easily, and with no consequence could fix a famine, but instead chooses not to, for no good reason?

It's better not to think of it as punishment but rather not receiving an undeserved reward.

Don't presume to think I have the same theological beliefs as them

This position is far more morally sensible. It solves the problem of "an infinitely just, benevolent being would sentence me to hell for the sin of not believing in him" by removing the "hell" part.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

That would be horribly unjust.

How so? Also, what's your standard of justice?

 

[Dave-W]

From the rules post at the top of this forum:

No General Apologetics Topics

Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with defending or proving the truths of the Christian faith and doctrines. Discussion and debate on subjects related to general apologetics are not allowed in the Discussion and Debate category forums. Christians who would like to discuss apologetics may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

That, while also an example of brotherly love, is a great example of pointless nepotism. Worse, it's immoral.

Nepotism is immoral, I agree. But the analogy still works as a representation of Christianity even if the offender isn't the king's brother, but some random guy off the street, or even an enemy of the king. Why? Because God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

You did the crime, you pay the time. We don't get other people to go to jail for us.

No one is "getting" someone else to do the time for them. There is no higher judge or authority than Christ. He determines the penalty for sin, not you.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

...But hell is a complete perversion of justice. It takes the necessarily finite sin that a human commits in their lifetime, and transforms it into an infinite punishment.

What sin (or any action for that matter) is finite in nature?

 

[Chriliman]

If your child did something wrong at school, and another (innocent) child wanted to accept your childs punishment, would you let that child or would you want your child to face his responsibility and receive the punishment?

If you think it's immoral for another child to accept the punishment for your child and you honestly believe your a sinner, why do you let an innocent accept your punishment for you?

Why don't you do the time for the crime so to speak, and accept your punishment?

Why can you see its immoral for the innocent child to take your childs punishment, but yet gladly ride on the coat tails of the death of an innocent man into heaven?

I'll adjust this analogy slightly in order to make it more clear.

I have a child who has never done anything wrong and there are countless other children who have done wrong and are going to die because of the wrong they've done. I then ask my child if he would be willing to die in order to save the countless other children and he says "yes". I then would be immoral to keep my child from sacrificing himself to save the other children. In fact I would be very selfish to keep him from saving all the other children. I would be moral to allow my child to sacrifice himself for the other children and if I was God I would be very pleased with my son and would even conquer death itself to have him back. Indeed this is exactly what God has accomplished through Jesus Christ!

 

[Ana the Ist]

What sin (or any action for that matter) is finite in nature?

Lots of them...heck, arguably the overwhelming majority of them. How long did you think about this before asking?

Your common everyday sort of sin is extremely finite in both a measure of it and it's consequences. Suppose I came to your house, sat on your couch, and discovered a five dollar bill in the cushions. I then decide to commit the sin of theft and pocket it. The sin itself is finite (only five dollars was taken, not infinite dollars) and the consequences are finite (you lost five dollars).

That wasn't so hard was it? Would you like more examples?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll adjust this analogy slightly in order to make it more clear.

I have a child who has never done anything wrong and there are countless other children who have done wrong and are going to die because of the wrong they've done. I then ask my child if he would be willing to die in order to save the countless other children and he says "yes". I then would be immoral to keep my child from sacrificing himself to save the other children. In fact I would be very selfish to keep him from saving all the other children. I would be moral to allow my child to sacrifice himself for the other children and if I was God I would be very pleased with my son and would even conquer death itself to have him back. Indeed this is exactly what God has accomplished through Jesus Christ!

Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes for a moment. You left all sorts of things out in this analogy. Those "other children" are only in danger because of you in the first place. Hell wasn't created by man after all and we don't send ourselves there after death. So pretending that you're doing someone some big favor by taking them out of danger that you placed them in isn't exactly "saving them".

Also, it's important to point out that there's strings attached to this "saving". You're demanding they worship you in order to receive this "saving". After all, requiring that someone recognize you as their savior is demanding worship.

And it should be pointed out that you and your "son" are actually the same person.

When you look at all the facts of these beliefs it doesn't look much like saving at all.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Lots of them...heck, arguably the overwhelming majority of them. How long did you think about this before asking?

Your common everyday sort of sin is extremely finite in both a measure of it and it's consequences. Suppose I came to your house, sat on your couch, and discovered a five dollar bill in the cushions. I then decide to commit the sin of theft and pocket it. The sin itself is finite (only five dollars was taken, not infinite dollars) and the consequences are finite (you lost five dollars).

That wasn't so hard was it? Would you like more examples?

Did you think about your response at all before you posted it? Say my rent was short $5 and I remembered a five dollar bill sticking out from my couch cushion that had fallen out of my pocket. I go to get it and it's not there and my rent comes up short. Now I have the burden of paying late fees and that sets me back quite a bit. Now I can't afford to pay for other things, yada, yada. And I don't know about you, but I know I would feel bad if I stole something from my friend. Now I (the thief) have the burden of this guilt that may affect other actions. Or like many people, now I might feel inclined to steal more things since I've already gotten away with it once.

The concept is that every action not only has an effect, but a precursor. Every action has long lasting effects that we often can't see, like the ripples in a pond. So again I ask, what sin is finite?

 

[Chriliman]

Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes for a moment. You left all sorts of things out in this analogy. Those "other children" are only in danger because of you in the first place. Hell wasn't created by man after all and we don't send ourselves there after death. So pretending that you're doing someone some big favor by taking them out of danger that you placed them in isn't exactly "saving them".

Also, it's important to point out that there's strings attached to this "saving". You're demanding they worship you in order to receive this "saving". After all, requiring that someone recognize you as their savior is demanding worship.

And it should be pointed out that you and your "son" are actually the same person.

When you look at all the facts of these beliefs it doesn't look much like saving at all.

I understand you don't believe in God, which is why it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to believe that God did not cause evil/death, Satan caused evil/death. God allows evil/death in order to accomplish His will of destroying evil/death.

You can't deny that my adjustments to the analogy do actually make sense, it just comes down to belief when extrapolating the implications of the analogy out to God.

The wrong doing that the children are going to die for was not actually caused by them or me and my child, the wrong doing originated from a separate entity that opposes me and my child against my will and deceives the other children into doing wrong things. It is this entity that should justly receive the punishment. Again, this makes sense, it just gets personal, real fast.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How so? Also, what's your standard of justice?

With regards to the topic....I'd say a good place to start is for the punishment fitting the crime. Another good thing would be for the criminal to be the one who pays for the crime he committed...not someone else.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

With regards to the topic....I'd say a good place to start is for the punishment fitting the crime. Another good thing would be for the criminal to be the one who pays for the crime he committed...not someone else.

Where did your standard of justice come from? Why should I accept your standard of justice?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understand you don't believe in God, which is why it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to believe that God did not cause evil/death, Satan caused evil/death. God allows evil/death in order to accomplish His will of destroying evil/death.

You can't deny that my adjustments to the analogy do actually make sense, it just comes down to belief when extrapolating the implications of the analogy out to God.

The wrong doing that the children are going to die for was not actually caused by them or me and my child, the wrong doing originated from a separate entity that opposes me and my child against my will and deceives the other children into doing wrong things. It is this entity that should justly receive the punishment. Again, this makes sense, it just gets personal, real fast.

It doesn't make sense...after all if you're going to pin it all on some other entity, it shouldn't be one you created with full knowledge of what it would do. That still makes the entire situation your doing.

If I build a broken car, I'd be foolish to blame it for breaking down.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

If I build a broken car, I'd be foolish to blame it for breaking down.

Did you remind your parents before they disciplined you (if they disciplined you) that they made you that way? lol