Do the Fall of Man and the Atonement actually make sense to you?

[ittarter]

What I have come up with as the logical better understanding that resolves the problems of (PS) is the following:
The solution I have come up is the result of trying to address these issues and considering the impact on me if Christ had not gone to the cross.
In thinking about God;
1.Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? Why?
2.Could we say that God suffered more than Christ?
3.Could God not have prevented Christ from ever going to the cross?
In thinking about me;
1.When I/you realized and understood some things about Christ going cross did I/you suffer?
2.Why , when and how much did I/you suffer?
3.Could I (personally) have kept Christ from going to the cross?
4.If I had not sinned then there would have been another way for man to fulfill his objective without Christ having to go to the cross, so can I feel some personal responsibility?
5.Could I handle the physical punishment required for the offence of sin?
Response to each issues by the number:
1.God can forgive without punishment of the guilty, but since there is benefit to punishment and a Loving parent would make sure His children were punished than God will have to make a way for His Children to be punished.
2.A. We are the offender and do not want to sin again, which is throwing salt on the wounds of Christ and others, see the severity of sin by see what Christ went though.
B. The punishment to us which is felt with Christ’s physical and mental suffering, should/could be in proportion to our sins?
C. God as our Parent is seeing to it that we are punished, by allowing a willing Christ to be tortured.
D. It is just to us since we as the guilty are being punished, it is not “just” or fair to Christ, but God is not punishing Christ. God is allowing wicked children of satan to torture Christ, but that is the way God works all the time. God allows satan’s children to do terrible things that provide opportunities for those that are willing or will become willing through their mistakes to repent and accept His Love in the form of forgiveness. The murder of Christ did become a real piercing part of Peter’s message in Acts 2:38.
E. We do not feel the need to be further punished for our sins. We can look back on the cross with mixed emotions since great sorrow and great Love are both there.
3.Christ going to the cross provide another way for us to be punished without physically taking the punishment for our sins, but we were still punished so He is not taking our punishment away, but allowing for a different form of punishment. Christ being physically punished meant that we did not have to be physically punished.
4.God is not punishing Christ instead of us, but allowing Christ to be tortured and die, so we do not have to experience the physical punishment of our sins.
5.The nonbeliever is not punished by Christ going to the cross, so his punishment still awaits him.
6.Since we have received the benefits from being punished than God can mercifully forgive us. If forgiveness came before the punishment it would not be fair to punish us.
What are the issues with my ideas and what is your idea?

I think that, in an older thread, I have already discussed with you your position on the atonement. And I think I demonstrated that every replacement atonement theology will, likewise, have serious logical difficulties. However, there are definitely elements in your system that I like.

 

[Tractor1]

1. Is there some overriding “Law” that would prevent God from forgiving sins without the shedding of blood?

Yes. His infinite holiness.

No relation to God can be concieved that doesn't acknowledge His holy will or law, nor can any authority be discovered in His holy will or law that doesn't ground itself in His holy person. The general meaning of sin carries with it a meaning that a prescribed mark or ideal has been missed. This mark or ideal is the essential character of God which is made known to man by His revealed will or law.

God is the original good and all that is good in the universe is derived from Him. He is the eternal One, immutable in His infinite holiness. He subscribes to no principle as one who is subject to it because He is the principle. What is good and true is not a law which governs Him because He is the source of all these virtues.

The effect of sin upon God and of His attitude toward sin is displayed in the plan by which He saves the lost. Many who preach the gospel have a hard time understanding that the grace of God is not mere generosity on His part. If so, He could've saved souls apart from the sacrifice of His Son. Christ's death was required only because God cannot compromise His holy character by making light of sin. It's the very structure of the gospel that God is infinitely righteous in His attitude towards sinners, which means perfect and eternal condemnation unless the demands of infinite holiness are righteously met. In other words, whatever is done to save the lost, must be done in such a way as to preserve untarnished the character of God.

Therefore, a gospel appeal which offers salvation based upon divine charity and not on the efficacious blood of Christ is a dishonor to God. He must be, and is, just when He justifies the ungodly who do no more than believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26).

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[depthdeception]

The problems with Penal Substitution (PS) I am refer to are the following:
1. Is there some overriding “Law” that would prevent God from forgiving sins without the shedding of blood?

According to PSA theory, there is no overriding law "preventing" God from forgiving sins. To the contrary, God's refusal to forgive apart from punishment is, in fact, rooted in the free and perfect choice of Godself. In other words, God "cannot" forgive because God will not forgive.

2.There are benefits to punishment of the wicked: Punishment is part of discipline and has lots of benefits that God would be fully aware of:

Punishment is NOT equivalent to discipline. Discipline has a very focused, restrained purpose of instruction. Punishment, on the other hand, is by definition without restraint, executed for the sole purpose of penalty and retribution.

a. Deterrent to crime
b. Measures the offence (the greater the offence the greater the punisment)
c. Shows you are truly a child because parents see to it that their children are punished for their crimes.
d. It is fair and just, there needs to be consistency.
e. There is closure with punishment (You do the time for the crime and you can move on).

a.] I hardly see these as "benefits." Punishment as "deterrent" is only marginally effective, and instantly erects an impenetrable barrier between the one executing the threat of punishment, and those under the threat.

b.] "Equity" in punishment is unpredictable and, more often than not, nowhere near equity. Depending on where you are in the world (or in relation to the blood lust of God), punishment for the most minor offense can be a life-changing (or ending) thing.

c.] I'm a parent, and my daughter is not "truly" my child because I ensure that she is punished for every offense. In fact, the very nature of the forgiveness that I have for her ensures that she is NOT punished for every offense, for punishment does nothing to restore our relationship. I do discipline her, of course, but that is something COMPLETELY different.

d.] See . There is no consistency in punishment, for no punishment is ever equitable and, especially in the case of divine violence, is not equal whatsoever for the crimes perpetrated.

e.] The only closure is for the one who deliverers the punishment. The recipient of the violence--if they survive it--has to live with the consequences of the punishment forever.

3.The idea of punishing the innocent instead of punishing the guilty, even if the innocent is OK with it, is not just and fair.

I'm not sure I agree. If God is God, it seems that whatever God decides to do is what is just and fair. Therefore, if God decrees that the innocent should be punished unilaterally for the guilty, that is justice. The problem with this, really, is in the theological formulation of how this "transfer" accomplishes what the theology wants it so desperately to establish.

4.I have offended God so it is just and fair for God to see to it that I am punished me, so if Christ is taking my place is God punishing Christ?

Given that God is unwilling to change God's mind about the need to punish sin, I have a sneaking feeling that God could care less about who is punished, as long as someone is punished. Primal to PSA theory is the upholding of divine "justice" through whatever means necessary. That is, as long as punishment is dolled out and God's blood-lust is satisfied, justice is served.

5.If Christ is replacing me, then is Christ not also replacing everyone else, so does that not mean universal salvation for everyone?

In an intellectually honest PSA theory, the answer should be "yes." Of course, there is little intellectual honesty amongst the proponents of this theory, so that leaves few other options...let the theological gymnastics begin.

What I have come up with as the logical better understanding that resolves the problems of (PS) is the following:
The solution I have come up is the result of trying to address these issues and considering the impact on me if Christ had not gone to the cross.

1.Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? Why?

I'm not so sure I would say that the eternal being of God suffered (e.g., undergoing "change"), but I would say that suffering became relevant and personal to the divine experience in Christ's suffering on the cross.

2.Could we say that God suffered more than Christ?

Probably not.

3.Could God not have prevented Christ from ever going to the cross?

The real question is whether or not God could have prevented humanity from murdering Christ. The answer is probably the same as whether or not God could have prevented humanity from rebelling against the divine in the first place...

In thinking about me;
1.When I/you realized and understood some things about Christ going cross did I/you suffer?

Probably not a meaningful amount. Sure, there was probably some emotional distress, but it is difficult to actualize suffering in one's own life by merely conceptualizing the suffering of another.

2.Why , when and how much did I/you suffer?

See above.

3.Could I (personally) have kept Christ from going to the cross?

Could you have stopped yourself from murdering Christ? Probably, but we did it anyway. Violence is one of those things that humanity is VERY competent in.

4.If I had not sinned then there would have been another way for man to fulfill his objective without Christ having to go to the cross, so can I feel some personal responsibility?

Regardless of the "could have beens," it seems that one should always feel some level of personal responsibility for the murder of another.

5.Could I handle the physical punishment required for the offence of sin?

No idea. Since Christ's death on the cross was not a "physical punishment for the offense of sin", it's hard to tell precisely what the physical requirements might be. It could be as minor as a papercut, or as major as being dipped in boiling pitch.

Response to each issues by the number:
1.God can forgive without punishment of the guilty, but since there is benefit to punishment and a Loving parent would make sure His children were punished than God will have to make a way for His Children to be punished.

I don't follow the logic here. There is nothing intrinsic to being a parent that compels you to "ensure that children are punished." Punishment is the jurisdiction of the law, not of relationships. Parents discipline their children, not to chastise, but to instruct and make better. Punishment has not efficacy but destruction.

2.A. We are the offender and do not want to sin again, which is throwing salt on the wounds of Christ and others, see the severity of sin by see what Christ went though.

That doesn't seem to be that serious. Yes, we feel guilty about "throwing salt" in the wounds of Christ...but compared to ourselves bearing some manner of existential punishment, I think we could bear the slight emotional distress. Surely, we'll be distracted by something else soon enough and be able to find some momentary relief.

B. The punishment to us which is felt with Christ’s physical and mental suffering, should/could be in proportion to our sins?

Which is what, exactly? How does one quantify this punishment and suffering?

C. God as our Parent is seeing to it that we are punished, by allowing a willing Christ to be tortured.

No offense, but that is absurd. I wish I could have had that deal with my twin brother growing up: "hey Jason, I'll sit over here and feel really bad about myself while you get the whipping I deserve." That's not punishment, it's just really BAD parenting (and law-upholding).

D. It is just to us since we as the guilty are being punished, it is not “just” or fair to Christ, but God is not punishing Christ. God is allowing wicked children of satan to torture Christ, but that is the way God works all the time. God allows satan’s children to do terrible things that provide opportunities for those that are willing or will become willing through their mistakes to repent and accept His Love in the form of forgiveness. The murder of Christ did become a real piercing part of Peter’s message in Acts 2:38.

Punishment through a guilt-trip...I'll take that any day.

E. We do not feel the need to be further punished for our sins. We can look back on the cross with mixed emotions since great sorrow and great Love are both there.

Great sorrow for what? Because a deranged God directed all divine violence against someone other than ourselves? If I started with the notion that I deserved to be punished for my sins, this weird transaction within the divine person of God would hardly change my feeling about my deserving punishment. I might be relieved, of course, that the threat is gone...but will the feeling of undeservedness suddenly vanish? Only if we are the most despicable of creatures.

3.Christ going to the cross provide another way for us to be punished without physically taking the punishment for our sins, but we were still punished so He is not taking our punishment away, but allowing for a different form of punishment. Christ being physically punished meant that we did not have to be physically punished.

How, again, are we punished? The guilt-trip? Again, if that's punishment, I'll take it anyday.

4.God is not punishing Christ instead of us, but allowing Christ to be tortured and die, so we do not have to experience the physical punishment of our sins.

If God can "allow" Christ to be tortured and die, why can God not bypass all this drama and just "get over" whatever animosity God has against humanity for its sins?

5.The nonbeliever is not punished by Christ going to the cross, so his punishment still awaits him.

So a guilt-trip is good enough for "believers", but non-believers still get the full Monty? Wow, that's a ripoff.

6.Since we have received the benefits from being punished than God can mercifully forgive us. If forgiveness came before the punishment it would not be fair to punish us.

Ah, but if God's need to punish is extinguished in the divine mutilation of Christ, there is nothing left to "forgive." If God has gotten over the divine blood lust through Christ's death, the threat of punishment has been removed: this is, in essence, the nature of forgiveness within your system.

Of course, since Christ is actually punished in your model, the concept of "Forgiveness" has become seriously distorted and defies any resemblance to technical or common sense definitions of it.

What is your idea?

My idea is that the incarnation of Christ is the great heralding of God's love for humanity, the revelation of the profound reality that God has forgiven all human sin without reservation. This forgiveness is not based on deservedness, punishment, or even the prior fulfillment of some eternal obligation to divine "justice." Rather, God's forgiveness is the first movement in the grand, eternal drama of divine/human reconciliation whereby God draws all of creation into restored relationship with its creator through Christ.

Christ's death, then, is not a divine chastisement, but the means by which Christ overcomes the powers of human sinfulness and rebellion. In his death, Christ takes unto himself the full gathered power of sinfulness and evil, extinguishing their virulence forever in his vindication by God in resurrection.

 

[depthdeception]

The effect of sin upon God and of His attitude toward sin is displayed in the plan by which He saves the lost. Many who preach the gospel have a hard time understanding that the grace of God is not mere generosity on His part. If so, He could've saved souls apart from the sacrifice of His Son. Christ's death was required only because God cannot compromise His holy character by making light of sin. It's the very structure of the gospel that God is infinitely righteous in His attitude towards sinners, which means perfect and eternal condemnation unless the demands of infinite holiness are righteously met.

But this picture creates a complete contradiction within the character of God. You say that God must punish in order to maintain God's holy character. However, the response of God to the violence and diminution of the divine "good" is, itself, an act of violence and diminution of good. Although God supposedly despises the tactics of sin (hence the need and desire to punish for it), you propose that God nonetheless adopts sin's very tactics to overcome it, only on an admittedly much more terrifying scale.

In essence, the stooping of God to the level of these tactics merely indicates that God has, in the act of violence and destruction (realized in the murder of Godself in Christ), vindicated the validity of these approaches. Therefore, it is utterly self-negating for God to punish that which God has, in divine response, fundamentally acknowledged as in keeping with the character of the eternal God (e.g., "good").

 

[Lanny P]

I haven’t checked back on this thread in awhile, but it seems to have brought out some interesting perspectives. I emphatically do not believe that religious faith can be reduced to a matter of pure logic or “critical thinking.” At some point, one has to take a leap of faith that transcends rational, dualistic thinking. A leap of faith based on intuition rather than logic, as Charles Ernest Essert stated. However, because we are thinking beings, I likewise do not believe that a religious faith that ignores logic or flies in the face of logic can be anything more than a house of cards.

Strictly in terms of logic, it’s pretty obvious that there is a spectrum of belief extending from the ridiculous to the sublime. If someone sincerely worshipped Mick Jagger as divine and built his entire life around the Rolling Stones’ lyrics as having been divinely inspired, pretty much everyone would dismiss him as insane. I happen to live in an area dominated by a sect that to me is demonstrably a historical fraud and whose core beliefs are simply nutty. I would, on what I believe to be rational, evidentiary grounds, put its beliefs toward the “ridiculous” end of the logic spectrum – yet it has millions of adherents, some extremely intelligent and analytical in other contexts. Ditto for what I described in my original post as the “traditional” doctrines of the Fall and the Atonement, but which I might have more accurately described as the “modern conservative Christian” doctrines. My description of these doctrines was somewhat cartoonish, but certainly 95% accurate in terms of what I hear espoused in conservative Christian churches and in the conservative Christian media every day. Again, I would – on what I believe are rational grounds – put these beliefs toward the “goofy” end of the spectrum of logic.

I can see how one might consciously choose to ignore logic, shut off one’s brain, and say “I’m going to make a leap of faith and cling to these doctrines even though they don’t hold up to logical scrutiny.” But short of shutting off one’s brain, I’m puzzled as to how millions of people manage to believe these doctrines (or at least tell themselves that they believe them). The Fall and the Atonement seem to me to be the core doctrines of Christianity – ones that demand deep thought and at least something resembling a rational explanation if one’s faith is going to be anything more than a house of cards. I’m not saying that where my own “deep thought” has led me is the only rational explanation or is necessarily superior to other rational explanations; this is why I always describe my own beliefs as flexible and myself as willing to accommodate new ideas or evidence. But as a thinking being, I do believe that I have an obligation to let my analytical skills take me as far as they can before I make the leap of faith based on what Charles Ernest Essert described as intuition. What puzzles me, when it comes to religion in general and Christian doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement in particular, is how many people seem willing to completely abandon their analytical skills and cling to doctrines that my analytical skills tell me are illogical. Bear in mind, I am by no means saying that the doctrines of the Fall and the Atonement are nonsense. My own leap of faith has been in the direction of Christianity, but this was possible for me only after I had arrived at a formulation of the Fall and the Atonement that at least didn’t offend my common sense and my innate sense of what an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator of the universe could possibly be like.

 

[ittarter]

Hi again, Lanny. I presume you were mostly responding to my post. Let me try and clarify a few things that I was saying by expanding them in a couple directions. I hope our conversation continues, because it's something I'm working through right now, but I think I have a pretty good case against this aspect of the Protestant ethic. Having grown up a Protestant myself, I grew up with the same value of thinking for oneself and questioning authority which we have been exploring. I am now in the process of trying to work myself out of that line of thinking, because I am pretty sure it's a dead-end and leads either to full deconstruction a la Nietzsche, or delusion that somehow my current beliefs are impervious to the deconstructive tactics that I have used to critique every other set of beliefs, in a hopeless attempt to defend my own, and from whom? none other than myself. This account of the Protestant ethic is true to my own experience. We are all afraid of one day discovering that we each live in our own house of cards, (in Radiohead's words) that "denial, denial" that keeps us hoping that this time we won't be so tragically disappointed, that my self-deception will last until the very last breath of life leaves my lips.

Sorry for the long intro. Here's my response.

Strictly in terms of logic, it’s pretty obvious that there is a spectrum of belief extending from the ridiculous to the sublime. If someone sincerely worshipped Mick Jagger as divine and built his entire life around the Rolling Stones’ lyrics as having been divinely inspired, pretty much everyone would dismiss him as insane. I happen to live in an area dominated by a sect that to me is demonstrably a historical fraud and whose core beliefs are simply nutty. I would, on what I believe to be rational, evidentiary grounds, put its beliefs toward the “ridiculous” end of the logic spectrum – yet it has millions of adherents, some extremely intelligent and analytical in other contexts. Ditto for what I described in my original post as the “traditional” doctrines of the Fall and the Atonement, but which I might have more accurately described as the “modern conservative Christian” doctrines. My description of these doctrines was somewhat cartoonish, but certainly 95% accurate in terms of what I hear espoused in conservative Christian churches and in the conservative Christian media every day. Again, I would – on what I believe are rational grounds – put these beliefs toward the “goofy” end of the spectrum of logic.

These Christians who espouse such terribly flawed versions of the truth of the Fall and the Atonement are, in my experience, totally unawares of how truth and belief function and are formed. Because they are fundamentally traditions, they do not stand as some inviolate form -- they change over time as cultures and societies change. If that is the case, then there is something inherent to all the forms which is preserved, but is not identical to the forms. When people get caught up in extraneous points of interest, like the order of God's decrees, or in what different senses Jesus died for the elect versus all humankind, they lose sight of the whole point behind the tradition. That point cannot be fully captured because it is highly personal, subjective, and applies itself differently to different folks in different contexts. And it is this part of the Fall, or the Atonement, or whatever, which is invulnerable to attacks of a logical nature. Certainly, people may legitimately reject such beliefs, but only on the basis of another truth that they already adhere to. For example, someone may reject the Fall because they are already committed to the innate goodness of every human being, or the non-existence of evil.

So how would I understand the Mick Jagger argument? I think that to really make something out of it, we would have to determine exactly why worshipping the Rolling Stones would be perceived as insane. You say "simple logic," and I request that you clarify how it is illogical. If you say, "because clearly Mick Jagger is not the messiah," or something to that effect, I say "then it is simply the case that it would be viewed as insane for the same reason that Jesus' followers were viewed as insane in the first century." If you have a different response, then perhaps we could talk about that instead. However, because we have not identified any hypothetical "truths" that would be part of the hypothetical Mick Jagger religion, I don't yet find it a very compelling example.

I can see how one might consciously choose to ignore logic, shut off one’s brain, and say “I’m going to make a leap of faith and cling to these doctrines even though they don’t hold up to logical scrutiny.” But short of shutting off one’s brain, I’m puzzled as to how millions of people manage to believe these doctrines (or at least tell themselves that they believe them). The Fall and the Atonement seem to me to be the core doctrines of Christianity – ones that demand deep thought and at least something resembling a rational explanation if one’s faith is going to be anything more than a house of cards. I’m not saying that where my own “deep thought” has led me is the only rational explanation or is necessarily superior to other rational explanations; this is why I always describe my own beliefs as flexible and myself as willing to accommodate new ideas or evidence. But as a thinking being, I do believe that I have an obligation to let my analytical skills take me as far as they can before I make the leap of faith based on what Charles Ernest Essert described as intuition. What puzzles me, when it comes to religion in general and Christian doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement in particular, is how many people seem willing to completely abandon their analytical skills and cling to doctrines that my analytical skills tell me are illogical. Bear in mind, I am by no means saying that the doctrines of the Fall and the Atonement are nonsense. My own leap of faith has been in the direction of Christianity, but this was possible for me only after I had arrived at a formulation of the Fall and the Atonement that at least didn’t offend my common sense and my innate sense of what an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator of the universe could possibly be like.

It's basically intellectual humility. Rather than relying upon the finite comprehension of my limited brain in the present point in time to act as an infallible guide in matters of religious or spiritual truth, I choose to trust an established authority which (I believe) is established by none other than God himself. This is not much different than (as Jesus commanded us to imitate) the child who trusts the math teacher (or the calculator) that multiplying two negative numbers together results in a positive number, even though (to the child) the premise that two negatives can result in a positive is simply ridiculous and a travesty of every rule of logic apprehended thereunto. Likewise, those who are truly pious and trust in God over themselves must choose the path of intellectual, childlike humility and believe that which appears illogical.

Within the biblical narrative there are countless stories that emphasize this very point, but in a concrete (rather than abstract) manner. This strongly suggests that it is critical characteristic of ancient Hebrew and Christian religion, and we would be remiss if we were to substitute it with a theology of personal rationality.

 

[Lanny P]

Hi, ittarter -- As with bling, I’m not sure that there is any fundamental disagreement between what I’m saying and what you’re saying. I too recognize the “finite comprehension of my limited brain” and agree that it can’t be relied upon as an infallible guide to spiritual truth. And I likewise recognize the need for a “childlike humility” in regard to the divine. However, I’m not completely sure what you mean when you say that you “choose to trust in an established authority.” I have chosen to trust in the Bible, or at least in the person of Jesus, but only because of the way my thinking has evolved – not because the Bible claims to be the word of God or is endorsed by religious authorities. Life experiences, reflection and reasoning have led me to a position that is basically Christian.

As I alluded to in my original post, a handful of paranormal experiences and a really intense study of paranormal phenomena of all types are what led me back to a spiritual path after I had bailed out of seminary and organizations like Campus Crusade. I’m not talking about fooling around with Ouija boards or that sort of dangerous silliness. Among a number of other unusual experiences, I have had fairly vivid after-death communications from my father, my wife and my wife’s sister. (When I was 21, my father, whom I had “led to Christ” in my Campus Crusade days shortly before his death, delivered the very simple but powerful message: “I’m dead but I’m not dead.”) And I’ve engaged in really serious studies of near-death experiences, after death communications, apparitions, mediumistic communications and other survival evidence. The sheer weight of the evidence convinced me that consciousness does survive bodily death, which I believe is the Great Divide between those who have a “spiritual” perspective on life and those who don’t. So this is the evidence-based foundation stone of my theology: Consciousness does survive bodily death, and there is something we loosely call the “spiritual realm” that is not accounted for by a strictly materialistic philosophy. This belief in survival is my evidence-based foundation stone, but I realize that even at this early point in my theology I’m making a leap of faith and that my interpretation of the evidence could be wrong.

Beyond this, my own experiences and intuition and my studies of the evidence for intelligent design suggest to me that we live in a created universe. Likewise, my own life experiences and intuition suggest to me that we live in a world where there is a genuine difference between good and evil (i.e., that evil is not a mere illusion) and that human nature is flawed in some fundamental way that separates us from the divine. This is all consistent with Christianity. I have also had innumerable uncanny experiences suggesting to me that some sort of spiritual being is taking an active interest in my welfare, protecting me and guiding the course of my life in at least a broad sense. My experiences in this regard are consistent with what I regard as fairly convincing evidence from near-death studies, suggesting that individual lives do have meaning and purpose, that even the seemingly smallest events have larger significance, and that there is a being of unfathomable intelligence and love behind it all. This is likewise consistent with Christianity. Lastly, the words of Jesus simply have to me the “ring of truth” – of all religious leaders, I believe that Jesus did indeed have unique insights into What It’s All About. I thus accept that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus bridge the gulf between myself and the creator in some mysterious way. So this is why I describe Christianity as the “template” for my theology.

I believe that my personal theology is, at least, internally consistent – i.e., it holds together under logical scrutiny. And the fact that it has sustained me in crises such as the death of my wife from breast cancer (after 33 years of marriage) has proven to me that it’s no house of cards. Yet I recognize that at any number of points I have relied on and interpreted evidence that could be challenged or interpreted differently, that I have made connections that weren’t inevitable even if they were logical, and that I have chosen to take a leap of faith in one direction rather than another. So by no means do I regard my personal theology as infallible or even entirely rational. The most rigid fundamentalist could ultimately prove to be 100% right – or the ultimately reality could prove to be far more mysterious than any of us supposes.

What troubles me is that conservative Christian theology seems in many respects inconsistent with the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator, as well as illogical or internally inconsistent. So this is my fundamental puzzlement: Trying to mentally pound the number of round pegs into square holes that is required of someone within a conservative Christian framework drove me from seminary and, I’m sure, would have driven me quite insane if I had kept at it. So how and why do people do it? Conversely, opening myself to the best evidence, to my own experiences and studies, and to my own common sense and logic led me back to a spiritual path and ultimately to a deep faith.

Take the reincarnation evidence, which would be dismissed out-of-hand in my local Baptist church: The best of it, such as the work done by the late Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia, is quite compelling. Not beyond controversy by any means, but compelling. And reincarnation seems entirely consistent to me with the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator – indeed, reincarnation seems to me to overcome some of the most troubling aspects of conventional Christian doctrine. Lastly, reincarnation seems to me to be consistent with several statements in the Bible and really inconsistent with only one. Ergo, I have incorporated reincarnation into my personal theology (subject to revision if better evidence comes along), and I really don’t care what the Pope, Billy Graham, my local pastor or any other Christian authority figure thinks about it. For that matter, I really don't even care what the Bible says about it. I don’t see this as intellectual arrogance, but simply as following the evidence where it and my own powers of reasoning lead me. (This was my point about Mick Jagger or the sect that I believe to be a historical fraud: Here, the individual is clinging to beliefs for which there is no evidence or for which the evidence is damning.)

Anyway, what I have done is formulate a personal theology that I find intellectually and emotionally satisfying as an explanation of what the universe is all about. It happens to dovetail pretty closely with Christianity, and thus I describe Christianity as my “template.” My leap of faith has been to say, “I am going to live my life as though this were true, while remaining open to the possibility that I may have to modify my beliefs if better evidence or better explanations come along.” My intellectually humility is to say, “I know this could be 100% wrong, and that I’m merely a human being whose very existence is dependent on the creator and who is incapable of grasping ultimate reality, but this is the best I can do with the tools I’ve been given.” Now that I’ve spent years trying to think through all these things, I’ve reached the point where I no longer even care about most of the doctrines that divide the various Christian denominations. I’m content with a much broader theology that doesn’t try to fill in all the gaps by pounding round pegs into square holes. When it comes to the Fall and the Atonement, I’m content with an acceptance that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus somehow mysteriously reconcile me to the creator. This is my “childlike faith,” simply saying "OK, I'll accept that it works even if I don't completely understand it." However, this to me is quite different from saying, “I’m going to shut down my brain and accept the teachings of the church like a 4-year-old even if they don’t hold up to logical scrutiny and violate my concept of what an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator could possibly be like.” I don't think Jesus was literally asking us to turn into 4-year-olds.

 

[bling]

Yes. His infinite holiness.

No relation to God can be concieved that doesn't acknowledge His holy will or law, nor can any authority be discovered in His holy will or law that doesn't ground itself in His holy person. The general meaning of sin carries with it a meaning that a prescribed mark or ideal has been missed. This mark or ideal is the essential character of God which is made known to man by His revealed will or law.

God is the original good and all that is good in the universe is derived from Him. He is the eternal One, immutable in His infinite holiness. He subscribes to no principle as one who is subject to it because He is the principle. What is good and true is not a law which governs Him because He is the source of all these virtues.

The effect of sin upon God and of His attitude toward sin is displayed in the plan by which He saves the lost. Many who preach the gospel have a hard time understanding that the grace of God is not mere generosity on His part. If so, He could've saved souls apart from the sacrifice of His Son. Christ's death was required only because God cannot compromise His holy character by making light of sin. It's the very structure of the gospel that God is infinitely righteous in His attitude towards sinners, which means perfect and eternal condemnation unless the demands of infinite holiness are righteously met. In other words, whatever is done to save the lost, must be done in such a way as to preserve untarnished the character of God.

Therefore, a gospel appeal which offers salvation based upon divine charity and not on the efficacious blood of Christ is a dishonor to God. He must be, and is, just when He justifies the ungodly who do no more than believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26).

In Christ,
Tracey

Your God did not think thinks through very well when He made the rules that would “arbitrarily” require Christ’s blood?
My explanation gives the logic, fairness, justice, mercy, and Love behind God allowing Christ to go to the cross and assumes God is always working in the best interest (their sake) of those that Love Him (or will Love Him) and not for the sake of some arbitrary rule.

 

[ittarter]

Hi Lanny. Thanks for sharing some of your own history with me.

Hi, ittarter -- As with bling, I’m not sure that there is any fundamental disagreement between what I’m saying and what you’re saying. I too recognize the “finite comprehension of my limited brain” and agree that it can’t be relied upon as an infallible guide to spiritual truth. And I likewise recognize the need for a “childlike humility” in regard to the divine. However, I’m not completely sure what you mean when you say that you “choose to trust in an established authority.” I have chosen to trust in the Bible, or at least in the person of Jesus, but only because of the way my thinking has evolved – not because the Bible claims to be the word of God or is endorsed by religious authorities. Life experiences, reflection and reasoning have led me to a position that is basically Christian.

In truth, since I haven't yet committed to an "established authority," I'm not yet in a position to rightly explicate the differences between what you're saying (which is basically where I'm at right now) and what I'm saying (which is basically where I want to go next). However, trusting an established authority seems to me to be different than simply admitting personal fallibility. Perhaps you can explain how you trust in the Bible, or Jesus, rather than simply notice that what it says and what you already know by experience conveniently line up.

What troubles me is that conservative Christian theology seems in many respects inconsistent with the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, just and loving creator, as well as illogical or internally inconsistent. So this is my fundamental puzzlement: Trying to mentally pound the number of round pegs into square holes that is required of someone within a conservative Christian framework drove me from seminary and, I’m sure, would have driven me quite insane if I had kept at it. So how and why do people do it? Conversely, opening myself to the best evidence, to my own experiences and studies, and to my own common sense and logic led me back to a spiritual path and ultimately to a deep faith.

I agree to a point. As I've said, I think that "true" conservative Christian theology is inviolable, while its form is justified only in its native historical context. At a seminary, you take antiquated forms and suppose that they themselves are inviolable, and have silly arguments like the ones I mentioned in my last post, having completely forgotten the subjective function of those arguments. And that practice is rightly called insane. However, the deeper truths of the theology stand nonetheless. For such truths, there is no "evidence" of whether it is correct or incorrect -- it is much closer to the concept of worldview than of scientific study. Thus, Mormons attempting to prove the historicity of the narratives in their sacred texts (or regular Christians and the Bible, for that matter) are holding onto the wrong end of the stick. Likewise with reincarnation. The point isn't about trying to find compelling evidence as to whether or not people are actually reincarnated. The point is to understand the impact of believing it at all. The only thing you need in order to believe it is to understand and agree with its function. I think that, among all the things we agree on, this is related to a fundamental difference between our two perspectives.

 

[bling]

Depthdeception said:
According to PSA theory, there is no overriding law "preventing" God from forgiving sins. To the contrary, God's refusal to forgive apart from punishment is, in fact, rooted in the free and perfect choice of Godself. In other words, God "cannot" forgive because God will not forgive.

I am suggesting that all things work for the good of those that do and will Love God Rms 8: 28, and not for some arbitrary rule or is it the “nature” of God.

Depthdeception said:
Punishment is NOT equivalent to discipline. Discipline has a very focused, restrained purpose of instruction. Punishment, on the other hand, is by definition without restraint, executed for the sole purpose of penalty and retribution.

I did not say, “punishment= discipline”. Punishment can be part of discipline and when God is seeing to the punishment of His children, it is always discipline of His children. Where do you find that punishment is always “without restrain”??? If you want to define punishment that way, then fine we can exclude the use of the word “punishment” and say we are being “disciplined” and not punished and Christ is being unjustly tortured and murdered.

Depthdeception said:
a.] I hardly see these as "benefits." Punishment as "deterrent" is only marginally effective, and instantly erects an impenetrable barrier between the one executing the threat of punishment, and those under the threat.[/

You might follow the speed limit if there was no punishment for breaking the law, but do you think most people would obey the traffic laws?
Are you suggesting we drop all “punishment” for driving drunk?

Depthdeception said:
b.] "Equity" in punishment is unpredictable and, more often than not, nowhere near equity. Depending on where you are in the world (or in relation to the blood lust of God), punishment for the most minor offense can be a life-changing (or ending) thing.

In this case we are talking about God “predicting” the equal “punishment” for the offence. If you got a little slap on the hand every time you sinned, how much “debt” would you feel your sins had created? If the reason behind the huge “debt” God places on just one sin is so “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”, then the debt needs to be huge so we can Love much.

Depthdeception said:
c.] I'm a parent, and my daughter is not "truly" my child because I ensure that she is punished for every offense. In fact, the very nature of the forgiveness that I have for her ensures that she is NOT punished for every offense, for punishment does nothing to restore our relationship. I do discipline her, of course, but that is something COMPLETELY different.[/

Would I be a good parent if I did not use every good possible means I could to help my small child from running in the road, including the punishment of time out?

Depthdeception said:
d.] See . There is no consistency in punishment, for no punishment is ever equitable and, especially in the case of divine violence, is not equal whatsoever for the crimes perpetrated.

I think God is totally consistent and perfectly equitable. Man screws up on this.

Depthdeception said:
e.] The only closure is for the one who deliverers the punishment. The recipient of the violence--if they survive it--has to live with the consequences of the punishment forever.

I’ve worked with former prisoners and they did the crime and did the time and are now out. If you are not disciplined for your offences do you feel there is something lacking or maybe owed?

Depthdeception said:
I'm not sure I agree. If God is God, it seems that whatever God decides to do is what is just and fair. Therefore, if God decrees that the innocent should be punished unilaterally for the guilty, that is justice. The problem with this, really, is in the theological formulation of how this "transfer" accomplishes what the theology wants it so desperately to establish.

This is more a “philosophical” issue, then a problem with most Christians has (most have not thought about it). The whipping-boy concept is not considered, by most societies as fair and you are not going to get the Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheist or me to buy into it being fair. That is not the God I know.

Depthdeception said:
Given that God is unwilling to change God's mind about the need to punish sin, I have a sneaking feeling that God could care less about who is punished, as long as someone is punished. Primal to PSA theory is the upholding of divine "justice" through whatever means necessary. That is, as long as punishment is dolled out and God's blood-lust is satisfied, justice is served.

WOW! I’ve presented a wise, logical, well thought out, fair, just, Loving, consistent, and merciful reason why God would for our sake (totally unselfish on His part) see to it that we were disciplined (punished) and you see it as some “lust” God has for blood. Did God not set divine justice with Godly wisdom? Does you God care?
Depthdeception said:
In an intellectually honest PSA theory, the answer should be "yes." Of course, there is little intellectual honesty amongst the proponents of this theory, so that leaves few other options...let the theological gymnastics begin.
You and I agree on this, but I do not think they realize how dishonest they are.

Depthdeception said:
I'm not so sure I would say that the eternal being of God suffered (e.g., undergoing "change"), but I would say that suffering became relevant and personal to the divine experience in Christ's suffering on the cross.

God did not desire Christ to go to the cross, but did allow Christ to go to the cross.

Depthdeception said:
The real question is whether or not God could have prevented humanity from murdering Christ. The answer is probably the same as whether or not God could have prevented humanity from rebelling against the divine in the first place...

OK, so allowing humans to sin in the first place had an purpose, since Christ going to the cross fulfilled a purpose.

Depthdeception said:
Probably not a meaningful amount. Sure, there was probably some emotional distress, but it is difficult to actualize suffering in one's own life by merely conceptualizing the suffering of another.

Part of what I am trying to show is God suffered with Jesus going to the cross, because they were one and God could have stopped it, but decided not to stop it for our sake. We are to be one with Christ like Christ is with God and the closer we grow to Christ the more we share in His suffering, but at the same time there is an overwhelming amount of Love which is being shown at the same time. I look to the cross with mixed feelings sorrow and forgiveness combine.

Depthdeception said:
Could you have stopped yourself from murdering Christ? Probably, but we did it anyway. Violence is one of those things that humanity is VERY competent in.

You miss the point. If there could have been another way for humans to fulfill their objective while on earth without sinning than Christ would not have had to go to the cross. If just one other person (including myself) had been able to accept Godly type Love without first sinning then Christ would not have had to go to the cross.

Depthdeception said:
No idea. Since Christ's death on the cross was not a "physical punishment for the offense of sin", it's hard to tell precisely what the physical requirements might be. It could be as minor as a papercut, or as major as being dipped in boiling pitch.

If you sin one time in one small way you are guilty. The punishment for just one sin is not a paper cut, but hell.

Depthdeception said:
I don't follow the logic here. There is nothing intrinsic to being a parent that compels you to "ensure that children are punished." Punishment is the jurisdiction of the law, not of relationships. Parents discipline their children, not to chastise, but to instruct and make better. Punishment has not efficacy but destruction.

Change the word “punish” to discipline. We need time out for playing in the street, a ticket for driving over the speed limit, pulled off the road, license revoked and thrown in jail for driving drunk. We need to know our parents care about us by encouraging us in every way to take corrective action.

Depthdeception said:
That doesn't seem to be that serious. Yes, we feel guilty about "throwing salt" in the wounds of Christ...but compared to ourselves bearing some manner of existential punishment, I think we could bear the slight emotional distress. Surely, we'll be distracted by something else soon enough and be able to find some momentary relief.

Tell me this: would you prefer to allow your daughter to be tortured for your mistakes or for you to be tortured and leave your daughter alone?
Should your Love for Christ be as great as or even greater than your Love for your daughter?

Depthdeception said:
Which is what, exactly? How does one quantify this punishment and suffering?

Peter tells us our sins were bore by Christ on the cross. It is hard to comprehend deity taking on sin or having anything to do with sin, but that is what happened.

Depthdeception said:
No offense, but that is absurd. I wish I could have had that deal with my twin brother growing up: "hey Jason, I'll sit over here and feel really bad about myself while you get the whipping I deserve." That's not punishment, it's just really BAD parenting (and law-upholding).

What you are describing is Penal Substitution (PS), the old whipping boy concept. That is not what I think is fair, just, logical or merciful. This is completely different and you do not seem to understand. The “Jason” is really like your daughter (equally loved Christ) and she (He) is not being punished but “tortured”, she (He) is not unwilling being tortured but willingly, the parent is God but he is not doing the torturing, but allowing wicked people to do the torturing of your willing daughter (his son that He loves enough to let Him do this). You are not physically experiencing the torture (discipline), because frankly you could not handle it but your daughter (Christ) can. You are being disciplined knowing that you’re the cause of this whole scenario and the pain your feeling for your daughter, but you also see the Love she has for you since she is doing this because you could not. Do you want to cause her/Him more pain? Do you feel enough has been done to you and it can stop (closure)? Does the debt seem huge enough so that you will Love much? Have you the guilty party been disciplined (punished) [we know there was an innocent party tortured, but were you disciplined]? Do you feel God (the parent) help you in correcting your behavior?

Depthdeception said:
Punishment through a guilt-trip...I'll take that any day.

Not the same. Would you prefer to be punished for your sins, or would you prefer to have your innocent daughter punished for your sins?

Depthdeception said:
Great sorrow for what? Because a deranged God directed all divine violence against someone other than ourselves? If I started with the notion that I deserved to be punished for my sins, this weird transaction within the divine person of God would hardly change my feeling about my deserving punishment. I might be relieved, of course, that the threat is gone...but will the feeling of undeservedness suddenly vanish? Only if we are the most despicable of creatures.

Your missing the point.

Depthdeception said:
If God can "allow" Christ to be tortured and die, why can God not bypass all this drama and just "get over" whatever animosity God has against humanity for its sins?

This is all to help us with our need for Love.

Depthdeception said:
So a guilt-trip is good enough for "believers", but non-believers still get the full Monty? Wow, that's a ripoff.

Your not in double jeopardy.

Depthdeception said:
Of course, since Christ is actually punished in your model, the concept of "Forgiveness" has become seriously distorted and defies any resemblance to technical or common sense definitions of it.

Christ is not “punished” but unjustly tortured and murdered. We need this scenario, God does not. The guilty party (me) is disciplined (punished) in this scenario. God can thus forgive and still has a system that disciplines (punishes) the guilty.

Sorry had to shorten it was to long.

 

[Lanny P]

ittarter, I really can’t explain why I trust in the Bible or Jesus. I do think, at some point, one has to abandon rational thinking and rely on intuition (as Essert said) and make a leap “over 70,000 fathoms of water” (as Kierkegaard said). At some point, I think one just has to say “This is where I’m going to drop my anchor. I’m going to live my life as those these things were true and hope that they are.” I’ve certainly been attracted to Buddhism and believe the teachings of Buddha are full of profound truths, but intuition and experience tell me that the words of Jesus are closer to the ultimate truth. I don’t believe that I could ever rise above being attracted to doctrines that “conveniently line up” with my own experiences of reality and my own concepts of what a just and loving creator might be like. This is my great puzzlement, I guess: How and why do believers cling to teachings that seemingly don’t square with reality and are internally inconsistent?

I’m not quite following your point about the fundamental difference in our perspectives. Take the reincarnation example, for instance. I could say, “My pastor says reincarnation is unbiblical, and thus I don’t even want to hear about it.” Or I could say, “The concept of souls transmigrating through multiple lives, so that each soul is able to experience the best and worst of what life has to offer and to grow from those experiences, and each soul has multiple opportunities to hear about Christ and accept the gift of salvation, eliminates the apparent injustices in the world, largely overcomes the problem of evil, and seems entirely consistent with the notion of a just and loving God. Therefore, I’m going to believe it independent of any evidence that this is what occurs.” Or I could take the latter statements a step further and actually study the evidence of reincarnation and be comforted by the fact that there is abundant evidence – which is what I’ve done. When you say, “The only thing you need in order to believe it is to understand and agree with its function,” it seems to me that you would be content to stop at the point where I say, “I’m going to believe it independent of any evidence that this is what occurs.” And I would have no problem with this. To a large degree, I think this is what I actually did – i.e., I was committed to reincarnation as the only explanation that made any sense (or at least that made more sense than the conventional Christian doctrine of “one life, one death, and then the judgment”) before I undertook any investigation of the evidence – but I have to admit that the evidence made me feel better. Unless I’m misunderstanding your position, I think I agree with what you’re saying about deeper theological truths standing apart from the evidence. But this gets me back to my original point – does one take an intuitive leap of faith in the direction of a certain set of theological truths because he has thought deeply about life and decided that this particular set of theological truths is what best explains the universe to him, even if it doesn’t precisely line up with any particular religion’s creeds, or does one accept a particular religion’s creeds on the basis of their supposed authority, even if they don’t line up with his life experiences or explain the universe in a way that seems to make sense? If reincarnation made no sense to me and didn’t square with my notions of what a just and loving creator might be like, I don’t think I could recognize or accept it as a deep theological truth. I think one's leap of faith has to be an "informed" leap rather than a "blind" leap.

Despite all this talk about logic and whatnot, let me make clear that I'm not suggesting that I think anyone needs a full-blown theology of any sort. It would make perfect sense to me to say, "My gut tells me that we live in a created universe guided by a just and loving creator ... the words of Jesus have the ring of truth to me, and I accept that he somehow reconciles me to the creator ... and now I'm going to move forward with my life on that basis, by trying to put the teachings of Jesus into practice, and I really don't care about anything else." I find myself moving increasingly in this direction. But this is why I haven't been comfortable joining any denominational church -- they, and most non-denominational churches as well, seem to require you to at least pretend to believe a set of tangential doctrines that just don't make sense to me.

 

[ittarter]

ittarter, I really can’t explain why I trust in the Bible or Jesus. I do think, at some point, one has to abandon rational thinking and rely on intuition (as Essert said) and make a leap “over 70,000 fathoms of water” (as Kierkegaard said). At some point, I think one just has to say “This is where I’m going to drop my anchor. I’m going to live my life as those these things were true and hope that they are.” I’ve certainly been attracted to Buddhism and believe the teachings of Buddha are full of profound truths, but intuition and experience tell me that the words of Jesus are closer to the ultimate truth. I don’t believe that I could ever rise above being attracted to doctrines that “conveniently line up” with my own experiences of reality and my own concepts of what a just and loving creator might be like. This is my great puzzlement, I guess: How and why do believers cling to teachings that seemingly don’t square with reality and are internally inconsistent?

I'll admit again that most Christians (including myself) spend way too much time debating irrelevant things, namely, what I've been calling "forms." But what holds a community of faith to the teachings for generations is that which DOES square with reality and IS internally consistent. Otherwise I don't believe it would have any staying power. So the question is, when you interact with those people, can you somehow maneuver them away from the superficial issues and get them to look at the deeper things? I think that's one of the things that Jesus did when the Pharisees repeatedly confront him in the gospel narratives with this Mosaic law and that Jewish practice. Since he understands their purpose, he is unperturbed by their misplaced religious piety and can weigh them and apply them accordingly. He knows "the greatest commandment," for instance -- the concept of a canon within in a canon, or in my language, the true theology at the heart of the form.

I’m not quite following your point about the fundamental difference in our perspectives. Take the reincarnation example, for instance. I could say, “My pastor says reincarnation is unbiblical, and thus I don’t even want to hear about it.” Or I could say, “The concept of souls transmigrating through multiple lives, so that each soul is able to experience the best and worst of what life has to offer and to grow from those experiences, and each soul has multiple opportunities to hear about Christ and accept the gift of salvation, eliminates the apparent injustices in the world, largely overcomes the problem of evil, and seems entirely consistent with the notion of a just and loving God. Therefore, I’m going to believe it independent of any evidence that this is what occurs.” Or I could take the latter statements a step further and actually study the evidence of reincarnation and be comforted by the fact that there is abundant evidence – which is what I’ve done. When you say, “The only thing you need in order to believe it is to understand and agree with its function,” it seems to me that you would be content to stop at the point where I say, “I’m going to believe it independent of any evidence that this is what occurs.” And I would have no problem with this. To a large degree, I think this is what I actually did – i.e., I was committed to reincarnation as the only explanation that made any sense (or at least that made more sense than the conventional Christian doctrine of “one life, one death, and then the judgment&#8221 before I undertook any investigation of the evidence – but I have to admit that the evidence made me feel better. Unless I’m misunderstanding your position, I think I agree with what you’re saying about deeper theological truths standing apart from the evidence. But this gets me back to my original point – does one take an intuitive leap of faith in the direction of a certain set of theological truths because he has thought deeply about life and decided that this particular set of theological truths is what best explains the universe to him, even if it doesn’t precisely line up with any particular religion’s creeds, or does one accept a particular religion’s creeds on the basis of their supposed authority, even if they don’t line up with his life experiences or explain the universe in a way that seems to make sense? If reincarnation made no sense to me and didn’t square with my notions of what a just and loving creator might be like, I don’t think I could recognize or accept it as a deep theological truth. I think one's leap of faith has to be an "informed" leap rather than a "blind" leap.

I would guess that this is because you lack a commitment to a theology of established authority, in terms of an interpreting community, anyway. The Bible and Jesus are much more easily controlled (forgive me this choice of words) than a community to which you can ask specific questions and they can give you specific answers. In theory, if one were to make a commitment to "the" church, then part of one's active beliefs would be to submit to their declarations when one's common sense is at odds with them, in the understanding that one's common sense changes over time, and over time, since those who seek the truth find it (says Jesus) and since the truth has been apprehended by the established authority, one's common sense will eventually harmonize with the declarations of that same established authority. It basically removes the urgency of the Now and gives you time to think. Of course, if you eventually concluded in a manner that disagreed with that established authority, then if you were honest with yourself, you would have to admit that they are no longer an authority for you -- you are your own authority. And this is what I think you've done. So the difference between you and I is that you are quite content with that, and I am looking to make that commitment to a community of faith as my "established authority."

Despite all this talk about logic and whatnot, let me make clear that I'm not suggesting that I think anyone needs a full-blown theology of any sort. It would make perfect sense to me to say, "My gut tells me that we live in a created universe guided by a just and loving creator ... the words of Jesus have the ring of truth to me, and I accept that he somehow reconciles me to the creator ... and now I'm going to move forward with my life on that basis, by trying to put the teachings of Jesus into practice, and I really don't care about anything else." I find myself moving increasingly in this direction. But this is why I haven't been comfortable joining any denominational church -- they, and most non-denominational churches as well, seem to require you to at least pretend to believe a set of tangential doctrines that just don't make sense to me.

I believe I understand where you're coming from, and this was definitely my original fear when I considered joining the Orthodox church. I don't believe that homosexuality is evil, and I don't believe that 97% of humanity is damned to endless torment. These ideas seemed, as you say, tangential. But my suspicion is that the POINT of these beliefs is different, and it is the FORMS that I am getting caught up with. The POINT of adhering solely to heterosexual relationships is the declaration of a divinely ordained way of living; "wisdom," so to speak, which sometimes counters our most deep-seated instincts and desires. Do I believe that? Yes. What about the form? It remains tangential, and I can believe it in the context of my greater commitment to living wisely in a world structured by a power higher than myself.

I'm thoroughly enjoying our discussion and hope you are too. Thanks for putting yourself out there.

 

[bling]

Lanny P.
I consider myself to be extremely conservative Christian, but that does not mean I go along with those that consider themselves to be conservative. “Liberal” to me is stretching the truth (taking liberties with the truth) and I do not want to do that. The truth I sometimes see is not the truth others have found and I certainly have not found all the truth.
I have met other Christians that believe in reincarnation and do not dismiss it. I like to reason together and try to develop the most likely alternative, but am not seeing reincarnation as the most likely alternative interpretation at this time.
1. I have to admit the scriptures do not address the afterlife of the group of humans that neither accept or reject God’s Love, so what does happen to those that never become mature adults and/or do not have the opportunity to make the moral decision to accept or reject God’s Love?
2. The scriptures does address the afterlife to some extent and generally of those that accept God’s Love (initially in the form of accepting forgiveness of their transgressions) and those that repeatedly refuse God’s Love. Generally those that accept God’s Love and do not reject it wind up in heaven for eternity (there is some question about some having a bodily resurrection earlier and the possible 1000 year deal.) Those that repeatedly reject God’s offer of forgiveness/mercy/grace/Love, seem to wind up being destroyed (not eternal life in hell), but there could be degrees of torture associated with this.
3. To some degree reincarnation seems like a reasonable alternative for at least those that did not have the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love. God would not condemn or even destroy the innocent, so we can go on worrying about ourselves, for everyone will get multiple choices and the state they are in now is where they are suppose to be, so not my problem. Is it some kind of entertainment for God?
4. If you accept God’s Love why would you want to come back to this earth and do it again? Would accepters of God’s Love in a previous life not need that experience from birth to help in the next life and would that not be an advantage over those that had rejected previously? If you are needed here than God could extend your life.
5. If we all have “lived” before, 99%+ do not remember anything about their previous life that really affects their life today, so they are not the “same” personality, so if you accepts God’s Love and the next life rejects God’s Love which person are you? If God has done all that is need for a person to accept His Love and that person continues to reject God’s Love, how by definition of “God has done all that is needed” could a person in another life then accept God’s Love?
6. I see problems with reincarnation and right now choose another alternative conclusion. We are all here on earth for a short period of time to do (accept) something we cannot do anywhere else. Our human “objective” while here is to obtain (accept) Godly type Love and possible grow that Love. Some humans will never have the opportunity to fulfill that object, but will inter heaven with just a strong innocent child love for a wonderful parent (God). Those that do inter heaven with Godly type Love will be able to serve those that have just a Child/Parent love. There are those that obtain Godly type Love by humble accept His forgiveness, as the result of trusting in a Creator that would forgive them of their transgressions against Him and other humans. They could feel the real relieve of this burden of sin not even knowing it is sin. As Christians we have the honor and privilege of finding these “trusting” souls and explaining to them what is going on and help them further experience God’s Love and the logic behind it. This helps us with growing God’s Love in us, share in God’s glory and keeps us out of trouble.
7. If you continue to reject God’s Love and continue to seek the perceived pleasures of sin, there will be no second chance, so you cannot put the decision off for another life. There are consequences to our decisions, you are responsible for your destiny and not some person in your next life.
Where am I not thinking right?

 

[Lanny P]

Hi again, bling and ittarter!

bling, I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest that you aren’t “thinking right.” You obviously have a deep faith, and most of what you say makes sense to me. Reincarnation is really a secondary part of my belief system – it makes sense to me, and there is some strong evidence for it, but who knows if it is true and how it works if it is? If earthly life is basically a “school” for the development of morally responsible beings who are capable of having genuine fellowship with God, then it makes sense to me that those beings might pass through a multitude of lifetimes in which they experience all the highs, lows, puzzles and temptations that life has to offer. Reincarnation would also avoid difficult issues like the death of infants (they’ll get their chance to live to be 100), the people who never hear about Christ (they’ll hear about him next time), and the obvious injustices of life (it all balances out over the course of 100 lifetimes). I have no idea what happens if one accepts Christ in lifetime number 23 – perhaps he remains with God or returns to earthly life to help others in their development (which happens to be precisely the Buddhist concept of the “bodhisattva,” someone who has achieved enlightenment and could enter into Nirvana but chooses to return in order to help others achieve enlightenment). And perhaps there is a point at which God calls an end to it all and there is a final separation of those who never acknowledged their need for salvation and accepted Christ. It makes sense to me, but I’m not lobbying for anyone else to believe in reincarnation if other explanations make more sense to them.

ittarter, I think a lot of what holds most communities of faith together is simply the realization that there is some profound mystery about life and that one needs to drop anchor somewhere in order to connect with this mystery. I’m not sure how many people really go “comparison shopping” and seek out the religion or the denomination that seems the most “theologically sound.” If I had been brought up in a solidly Catholic household, I’d probably be a solid Catholic and scarcely give it a second thought. I suspect that if you could get people to stop focusing on what you call the “forms” and focus on the deeper theological “points,” the entire structure of organized religions and denominations would collapse and we’d have – perish the thought! – an actual brotherhood of man united in a simple recognition that life is an unfathomable mystery. But every religion and denomination has a vested interest in keeping its followers focused on the superficial forms.

Yes, I think you’re right that I’ve made myself my own authority. Not in the sense of “This verse in the Bible means what I think it means, and the heck with everyone else.” But "my own authority" in the sense that I just can’t accept doctrines that are completely contrary to my notion of what a just and loving creator of the universe could possibly be like. However, I do still enjoy going to church and being part of a community of worshippers, even if much of what the pastor has to say goes in one ear and out the other. I do feel a special connection with the divine in this environment.

It’s odd that you mention homosexuality, because this is one of my pet peeves and I happened to be having a discussion about it last week. I’ve had several very close gay friends. It seems obvious to me and them that homosexuality is 99% a matter of genetics, and homosexuality is common in many other species. In short, it seems to me that homosexuality is simply a natural part of God’s creation. Yes, the Bible says it is an “abomination,” yada yada yada. I find it perfectly plausible that this taboo worked its way into the Bible because homosexuality was quite common in ancient times and perhaps could have threatened the growth of a small tribe like the Israelites. (The Mormon doctrine of “little souls in heaven waiting to be born” is kind of the counterpart: The very existence of this little sect hung in the balance in the early days, so this doctrine was a convenient way to encourage people to have 15 children.) I find this much more plausible than the notion that the creator of the universe regards a natural part of his creation as an “abomination.” And yet, there are multitudes of conservative Christians for whom homosexuality is absolutely a core issue. My reaction to this is, “Do you seriously think the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE even CARES about this sort of silliness????” I personally don’t think that the prohibition against homosexuality (the “form”) has any underlying theological “point.” I can’t believe that the wisdom of adhering to heterosexual relationships has any meaning for that segment of the population that is genetically programmed to be homosexual.

As we’ve been having this dialogue, I happen to have been reading the religious works of the Russian genius Leo Tolstoy. (My wife is Russian, or actually Belarusian.) These include “My Confession,” “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” and especially “My Religion.” Tolstoy was an EXTREMELY devout Christian, but totally out of synch with the Orthodox Church and most of Russian society. (His religious works have still not been published in Russian – my wife had never even heard of them.) He believed that the core of Jesus’ teachings is found in Matthew 5:38-42, and especially in the commandment to “resist not evil.” He believed that the Orthodox Church and Russian government had managed to completely ignore or completely pervert Jesus’ core teachings while focusing on the sort of superficial “forms” that we have been discussing. He said that for many years he tried to maintain a relationship with the Church for precisely the sorts of reasons you’re suggesting, but ultimately he concluded that he had to make a break and go his own way. It wasn’t simply that he disagreed with the “forms” – it was that Jesus’ “points” were either not found in the Church at all or were found in a completely perverted form. This is precisely my feeling today. For him, the entire “point” of Jesus is to not resist evil in any way, shape or form, but to meet it only with love – i.e., that only through this radical and somewhat frightening approach will evil ultimately be defeated. Yet EVERY church, now as then, manages to conveniently “interpret” this teaching so that Jesus’ words “aren’t what he REALLY meant” and so that blowing up thousands of innocent people in the name of the “war on terror” has Jesus’ full endorsement.

Well, it’s late and I am now rambling – but I agree that this has been a very fruitful and enjoyable discussion.

 

[bling]

The one thing I might add is:
I do not see us here to “learn” something or be educated. Knowledge might actually work against us fulfilling our objective since we can become dependent on: knowledge, wisdom, wealth, our country, our family, our religion, our health, our popularity, our degrees, or our looks. I see God making humans in the first place because His Love compelled Him to make humans that could obtain Godly type Love (the greatest gift God could give and the true power behind God.) The problem with Godly type Love is not the lack of knowledge, but the fact it cannot be instinctive (a robotic type love is not a Godly type Love) and it cannot be forced on the agent (take this Love or I torture you until you do take it). Godly type Love (as defined by Christ’s words and deeds) is the product of a free will acceptance on the part of the receiver of the unconditional and undeserving gift. Humans just have to trust their creator (faith) enough to humble themselves to accept charity (forgiveness/mercy/grace/Love).
So since trust (faith) and humility are the real hurdles, what situations product the greatest opportunities to overcome those hurdles? “Blessed are the______ .”

 

[brinny]

makes perfect sense.

 

[Lanny P]

bling, when I refer to earth as a “school,” I’m not suggesting that our purpose here is to gain knowledge in any worldly sense -- knowledge of the universe or that sort of thing. I agree with you that too much reliance on that sort of knowledge (or any other source of pride) can be a hindrance to spiritual growth. “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,” as Isaiah says (which I take to mean something like, “The acquisition of knowledge should begin with a humble acknowledgment that we live in a universe created by an intelligence beyond our comprehension and that our existence and ability to acquire knowledge at all are entirely dependent on this intelligence”). I may be off-base, but my thinking has been that numerous lifetimes might give a person a fuller understanding of what things like “sin,” “evil,” “forgiveness” and “grace” really mean and might make one’s acceptance of Christ more of an “informed choice.” I remember when I accepted Christ at the age of 19 or so by reciting the Campus Crusade prayer. I think I had very little understanding of the real significance of what I was doing. Was I saved at that moment? I don’t know -- Campus Crusade would say yes, but I would have my doubts. Perhaps the simple act of humbling oneself and trusting God even for an instant is indeed enough. Even after one has accepted Christ, I can see how additional lifetimes might give one a deeper understanding of God’s love and allow one to continue to serve as an instrument of God’s plan for the ultimate salvation of all who will listen. So again, I don’t think that what you are saying and what I am saying are wildly different. I agree that a lack of trust and humility are the big hurdles to an understanding and acceptance of what you call Godly-type love. The big appeal of reincarnation to me is that it does overcome some of the most perplexing questions, as set forth in my previous post, without doing any great violence to core Christian doctrines.

 

[ittarter]

ittarter, I think a lot of what holds most communities of faith together is simply the realization that there is some profound mystery about life and that one needs to drop anchor somewhere in order to connect with this mystery. I’m not sure how many people really go “comparison shopping” and seek out the religion or the denomination that seems the most “theologically sound.” If I had been brought up in a solidly Catholic household, I’d probably be a solid Catholic and scarcely give it a second thought. I suspect that if you could get people to stop focusing on what you call the “forms” and focus on the deeper theological “points,” the entire structure of organized religions and denominations would collapse and we’d have – perish the thought! – an actual brotherhood of man united in a simple recognition that life is an unfathomable mystery. But every religion and denomination has a vested interest in keeping its followers focused on the superficial forms.

Oh, I suppose I'll have to satisfy the hungry god of sociology and agree with you on that one. I'm just glad that in every religious tradition people have the option of rising above the superficial beliefs shared by the many. These beliefs should not result in those of us who believe that their purpose is more important than their form -- should not result in exiling us to the purgatorial limbo of non-commitment to any specific religious tradition.

Yes, I think you’re right that I’ve made myself my own authority. Not in the sense of “This verse in the Bible means what I think it means, and the heck with everyone else.” But "my own authority" in the sense that I just can’t accept doctrines that are completely contrary to my notion of what a just and loving creator of the universe could possibly be like. However, I do still enjoy going to church and being part of a community of worshippers, even if much of what the pastor has to say goes in one ear and out the other. I do feel a special connection with the divine in this environment.

It's this damned literalism of the modern era. We feel like we ought to be able to go to church or mass or wherever and whatever the intent of the sermon is, we should agree with it, otherwise we're not "really" agreeing with it. But I think it's also legitimate (and in keeping with the traditional Christian hermeneutic) to listen with one ear to the sermon, as sort of the input of a grand lectio divina (sic?), and feed the words to your mind to give it energy to wander along the grand paths of, well, true theology. In this case, while it may appear that you are ignoring the authority of the preacher, in fact you are taking the deeper truths of his words (as indicated by the great theological tradition of which you are part) and personally applying them as he speaks. Crazy? Perhaps. But sometimes that's the only way I can get through listening to the crap that the pastor from my home-town church comes up with -- not to mention the P&W numbers chosen by our new youth pastor.

It’s odd that you mention homosexuality, because this is one of my pet peeves and I happened to be having a discussion about it last week. I’ve had several very close gay friends. It seems obvious to me and them that homosexuality is 99% a matter of genetics, and homosexuality is common in many other species. In short, it seems to me that homosexuality is simply a natural part of God’s creation. Yes, the Bible says it is an “abomination,” yada yada yada. I find it perfectly plausible that this taboo worked its way into the Bible because homosexuality was quite common in ancient times and perhaps could have threatened the growth of a small tribe like the Israelites. (The Mormon doctrine of “little souls in heaven waiting to be born” is kind of the counterpart: The very existence of this little sect hung in the balance in the early days, so this doctrine was a convenient way to encourage people to have 15 children.) I find this much more plausible than the notion that the creator of the universe regards a natural part of his creation as an “abomination.” And yet, there are multitudes of conservative Christians for whom homosexuality is absolutely a core issue. My reaction to this is, “Do you seriously think the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE even CARES about this sort of silliness????” I personally don’t think that the prohibition against homosexuality (the “form”) has any underlying theological “point.” I can’t believe that the wisdom of adhering to heterosexual relationships has any meaning for that segment of the population that is genetically programmed to be homosexual.

Yes, if you take the genetic side of the question of sexual orientation, then I can see why you would have difficulty seeing any wisdom element at all. My own understanding is much more in terms of socialization, so I don't have any difficulty in making the jump to wisdom in a well-ordered universe.

As we’ve been having this dialogue, I happen to have been reading the religious works of the Russian genius Leo Tolstoy. (My wife is Russian, or actually Belarusian.) These include “My Confession,” “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” and especially “My Religion.” Tolstoy was an EXTREMELY devout Christian, but totally out of synch with the Orthodox Church and most of Russian society. (His religious works have still not been published in Russian – my wife had never even heard of them.) He believed that the core of Jesus’ teachings is found in Matthew 5:38-42, and especially in the commandment to “resist not evil.” He believed that the Orthodox Church and Russian government had managed to completely ignore or completely pervert Jesus’ core teachings while focusing on the sort of superficial “forms” that we have been discussing. He said that for many years he tried to maintain a relationship with the Church for precisely the sorts of reasons you’re suggesting, but ultimately he concluded that he had to make a break and go his own way. It wasn’t simply that he disagreed with the “forms” – it was that Jesus’ “points” were either not found in the Church at all or were found in a completely perverted form. This is precisely my feeling today. For him, the entire “point” of Jesus is to not resist evil in any way, shape or form, but to meet it only with love – i.e., that only through this radical and somewhat frightening approach will evil ultimately be defeated. Yet EVERY church, now as then, manages to conveniently “interpret” this teaching so that Jesus’ words “aren’t what he REALLY meant” and so that blowing up thousands of innocent people in the name of the “war on terror” has Jesus’ full endorsement.

Hmm. Well, all Western churches are living in "tension" with Jesus' demonization of wealth and idealization of a life lived in faithful poverty. I don't believe that every aspect of his message transfers to a Western context -- or rather, I just don't want to believe it, because then my recent property purchase would have been exactly what I shouldn't have done if I wanted to remain faithful to his teachings -- and so I sort of see what "every church" does as a part of our long war of adopting his imperatives to our own lives. Sometimes, for example, the ethical revolution that Jesus meant to start IS ignored -- thinking in terms of metaethics (our intentions) instead of formal ethics (what practice is right and what practice is wrong) and I don't think that I could fellowship very well with a church that ignored it. However, in my experience, even in Oklahoma, there are pockets of people here and there who understand it, and those are the people who I want to walk with along life's long road.

 

[Lanny P]

ittarter, I do think that something "mystical" takes place in church at a deeper level than the words being preached or the lyrics being sung. That's why I go, despite some part of me feeling that "I really don't belong here." Interestingly, I felt very at home in a Baptist service in Minsk, Belarus, where I barely understood a word but could absorb the sense of being among very serious, devout believers who were going against the political grain by even being there (because Belarus is more or less "officially" Orthodox).

I got a good lesson this weekend that perhaps things aren't quite as superficial as I might have thought, even in a tiny conservative church in a tiny, extremely conservative town. An assistant pastor and his wife and another couple who are pillars of the church asked us over for lunch. During casual conversation, I mentioned with some trepidation that I thought American capitalism was a perversion of Jesus' teachings and that a society founded on Jesus' principles would basically be "Communism, but with God in it." The assistant pastor surprised me by saying "Oh, yes, when my students ask me if I'm a Republican or a Democrat, I always say I'm basically a Communist." I then mentioned that I was reading Tolstoy and said some of the things that I said in my last post here. The wife in the other couple surprised me by saying "Oh, are you reading Tolstoy? I LOVE his religious writings." Lastly, I mentioned that I have been disappointed listening to supposed "Christian" radio and getting large doses of programming that is 99% political commentary and virtually indistinguishable from Rush Limbaugh. The assistant pastor's wife said "Oh, I can't stand it either. I just turn it off." So I guess there is hope, and perhaps even within my little church things aren't quite as superficial and dogmatic as I might have thought. It would be very interesting to have the sort of discussions we've been having on this thread in church on Sunday morning, instead of listening to yet another sermon on yet another Bible passage; we might discover that, despite very significant differences in our understanding of some of the doctrines of the "Baptist creed," we're bound together at a much deeper level.

 

[ittarter]

Nah, this is more for "Sunday school" or group discussion. I don't think I could stand to listen to even ten minutes of some guy gaffawing his way through this topic -- that is, unless he was very, very well-read and an engaging public speaker to boot. Sermons are meant to reaffirm the timeless message that DOES bind all of Christianity together, and this doesn't -- this is just, well, common sense