God doesn't like me

[linssue55]

This is not a place to debate either. Your asking questions and were giving you are opinons on the matter. If you want to argue then go to the general apolgetics forum. Because you are not truley seeking by the looks of it. You are trying to debunk our faith. We give you answers and you do not like them. There is nothing else we can do besides pray for you.

 

[linssue55]

....and women.

How exactly does God carry sins on his body? It sounds like sin is meant to be some kind of bacteria the way you describe it there. That is the problem isn't it? Whenever the atonement is described it always seems to involve pulling words hideously out of context. Can you describe the atonement in a way that makes sense without using dodgy analogies? It seems to me that the only way to accept the atonement is to accept that it is too much of a mystery for the human mind to understand, but many people are not happy with so vague an explanation (perhaps that's why we have these strange legalistic analogies at all?).

ALL homo-sapiens..........

 

[linssue55]

Faith Means Just That—Faith!​

It would be hard to find a statement in the Bible more superbly simple than the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when he said:
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has
everlasting life (Jn 6:47).
So simple, in fact, is this announcement, that even relatively young children are able to understand it. Certainly the average person on the street can understand it. Its directness and clarity are sublime.
In fact, it is statements like this one that show how anxious God is to make His offer of salvation plain. Although there are subjects in the Bible that are hard to understand—Peter himself said so (2Pe 3:16)—the way of salvation is not one of them.
Indeed, multitudes of men and women, young and old, from every walk of life, have found Christ through verses just as simple as this one.
Yet though the average person, and even a child, can grasp John 6:47, some Christian teachers and theologians do not!
In what must certainly be one of the worst distortions of the Bible in our day, the meaning of our Lord’s words are radically transformed by those who hold to lordship salva­tion. From being a model of simplicity, the Savior’s state­ment is reduced to incomprehensible obscurity.
What He really meant by these words—so we are told—is something like this:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who repents, believes, and
submits totally to my will, has everlasting life.

In support of this obvious revision of the text, we are assured that all the additional ideas are contained implicitly within the word “believe.” If only we understood the biblical concept of “saving faith,” it is claimed, then we would see the validity of this way of understanding Jesus’ words.1
What a surprise! Who would ever have guessed it? Were it not for the doctrine of saving faith which is promoted by lordship theology, what reader would ever have understood our Lord in this way? Indeed, he or she could have searched the entirety of John’s gospel repeatedly and never found even one reference to repentance, much less a reference to surrender or submission as a condition for eternal life. But, of course, they would find the word “believe” many, many times!
These observations already carry on their face a refutation of lordship thought. The fact is that John’s gospel is the only book in the New Testament which plainly declares that it was written with an evangelistic purpose in view. Thus, in John 20:30—31, the inspired Evangelist says:

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Yet, despite this clearly stated aim to bring men to saving faith, John’s gospel is as far from articulating lordship salvation as day is far from night!
Something has gone wrong in the evangelical world when a doctrine can be tolerated that so plainly clashes with the repeated statements of the fourth evangelist. What is the problem here? Where are the roots of this confusion?

What Is Saving Faith?

Perhaps the most fundamental answer to such questions is to say that large sections of the Christian church have quietly yielded to a process that has turned the meaning of faith upside down.
Over a period of many years the idea has gained ground that true saving faith is somehow distinguishable from false kinds of faith, primarily by means of its results or “fruits.”2
Thus two men might believe exactly the same things in terms of content, yet if one of them exhibited what seemed to be a “fruitless” Christian experience, his faith would be condemned as “intellectual assent,” or “head belief” over against “heart belief.” In a word, his faith was false faith—it was faith that did not, and could not, save.
With such ideas as these, the ground was prepared for full-fledged lordship theology. It remained for lordship thinkers to take the matter one step further.
What was really missing in false faith, so they affirmed, were the elements of true repentance and submission to God. Thus, saving faith ought not to be defined in terms of trust alone, but also in terms of commitment to the will of God. In the absence of this kind of submission, they insisted, one could not describe his faith as biblical saving faith.
If ever there existed a theological Trojan horse, this point of view is it!
Under cover of a completely insupportable definition of saving faith, lordship teaching introduces into the Christian church a doctrine of salvation which was unknown to the New Testament authors. It transforms the offer of a free gift of eternal life into a “contract” between the sinner and God, and it turns the joy of Christian living into a grueling effort to verify our faith and our acceptance before God. As theology, it is a complete disaster.
But it is also nonsense. A little reflection will show this. In every other sphere of life, except religion, we do not puzzle ourselves with introspective questions about the “nature” of our faith. For example, if I say to someone, “Do you believe that the President will do what he has prom­ised?” I could expect any one of three possible answers. One answer might be, “Yes, I do.” Another might be, “No, I don’t.” But my respondent might also reply, “I’m not sure, or, “I don’t know.”
There is nothing complicated about this exchange. Two of the three answers reveal a lack of trust in the President. The answer, “No, I don’t,” indicates positive disbelief of the President’s reliability. The reply, “I’m not sure,” indicates uncertainty about the integrity of the President. Only the response, “Yes, I do,” indicates faith or trust.
Of course, my respondent could be lying to me when he says, “Yes, I do.” I might even know him well enough to say, “You’re putting me on, aren’t you? You don’t really trust the President at all, do you?”
But it is certainly not likely that I would say, “What is the nature of this faith you have in the President? Would you now go out and break a law? And if you did, would that not raise a question about whether you really trust him?”
Such a question would be absurd. My respondent would have every reason to think I was joking. And if he took me seriously, he would have a perfect right to reply, “What has my breaking a law got to do with my firm conviction that I can trust the President in anything he says?”
Clearly, we all operate at the level of common sense when we talk about faith as it relates to everyday life. It is only when we discuss this subject in religion that we tend to check our common sense at the door.3
Indeed, in ordinary human life, the concept of “false faith” would arise only rarely. What would such an expression mean in normal conversation? Would it not have to mean something like “misplaced faith” or “pretended faith”? A person who had such a faith might be mistaken in believing what they do. His or her actual convictions might be false. Or they might only be pretending to a conviction, or confidence, that they did not in reality possess.
But “false faith” would never refer to a real conviction or trust which somehow fell below some imaginary standard which measured its results!
Let it be clearly stated here that English words like to “believe,” or ‘‘faith’’ function as fully adequate equivalents to their Greek counterparts. There is not some hidden residue of meaning in the Greek words that is not conveyed by their normal English renderings. Although some have affirmed that there is, this claim betrays an inadequate or misguided view of biblical linguistics.
It follows that a Greek reader who met the words “he who believes in Me has everlasting life,” would understand the word “believe” exactly as we do. The reader most certainly would not understand this word to imply submission, surrender, repentance, or anything else of this sort. For those readers, as for us, “to believe” meant “to believe.”
Surely it is one of the conceits of modern theology to suppose that we can define away simple terms like “belief” and “unbelief” and replace their obvious meanings with complicated elaborations. The confusion produced by this sort of process has a pervasive influence in the church today.
The solution, however, is to return to the plain meaning of the biblical text.

Cont......

 

[linssue55]

Intellectual Assent

Among the most frequent code words encountered in lordship teaching are those found in expressions like “cheap grace,” “easy believism,” and “intellectual assent.” All three of these phrases are usually used to disparage the idea that eternal life can be obtained by a simple act of trust in Christ. All three represent a seriously distorted assessment of the issues involved.
Naturally the saving grace of God could never be de­scribed as “cheap” in the negative sense this word often has. The fact is that God paid an enormous price—the death of His Son—to make His grace available to us. Simply because the offer of grace is made free of charge to us does not transform that grace into something “cheap” or valueless.
After all, when the Bible can say, “And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17), we obviously are not talking about something “cheap”—even in the positive sense of that word. We are talking, rather, about something which is absolutely free!
Equally objectionable is the phrase “easy believism.” Presumably the opposite would be “hard believism.” And if any system of thought teaches “hard believism,” lordship salvation certainly does.
As we have just noted, lordship thought abandons the straightforward meaning of the word “believe” and fills the concept of saving faith with illegitimate complications. The result is that the saving transaction is made much more complex than it actually is. But salvation really is simple and, in that sense, it is easy! After all, what could be simpler than to “take the water of life freely.”
But the most misleading of all the lordship code-word expressions is the phrase “intellectual (or, mental) assent.”
Usually what is implied by this phrase is a type of belief that is emotionally and volitionally remote and disinterested. Words like “intellectual” or “mental” are primarily to blame for this.
If I say, “That man has only an intellectual interest in politics,” I have implied that his interest is too detached and academic. The same effect is produced in English when I say, “He has only given the proposition his mental assent.” Again, I am suggesting detachment and personal disinterest.
But suppose I say, “I made an important point, and he assented.” Then the effect is different. I imply by these words a meaningful agreement with what I have said. And there is no negative undertone of any kind.
Clearly, the terms “intellectual” and “mental” cause the trouble.
Of course, “intellectual” can mean nothing more than “of or pertaining to the intellect,” and need not carry any negative overtones at all. But the fact remains that in many of its everyday uses it does carry these overtones. Thus the expression “intellectual assent” already has a prejudicial connotation for most English speakers. The phrase immedi­ately sounds as if it is in some way undesirable.
In this context, we should discard words like mental or intellectual altogether. The Bible knows nothing about an intellectual faith as over against some other kind of faith (like emotional or volitional). What the Bible does recognize is the obvious distinction between faith and unbelief.
No one needs to be a psychologist to understand what faith is. Still less do we need to resort to “pop psychology” to explain it. It is an unproductive waste of time to employ the popular categories—intellect, emotion, or will—as a way of analyzing the mechanics of faith.6 Such discussions lie far outside the boundaries of biblical thought. People know whether they believe something or not, and that is the real issue where God is concerned.
But lordship salvation drives its adherents into a psycho­logical shadowland. We are told that true faith has volitional and emotional elements. But we might ask: In what sense?
Have we not all at some time been compelled by facts to believe something we did not wish to believe? Did we not, in a sense, believe against our will? Was that not even the case with Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus? And is it not equally true that we often believe things without any discernible emotional response to them, while at other times we are overwhelmed with emotion?
Such questions show how precarious and contradictory are the notions about faith which arise out of popular psycholo­gy.
The one thing we cannot do, however, is to believe something we don’t know about. That is why the apostle Paul declared quite plainly, “And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (Ro 10:14). And he added appropriately, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (10:17).
Does that involve the intellect? Of course! But is it mere intellectual assent? Of course not! To describe faith that way is to demean it as a trivial, academic exercise, when in fact it is no such thing.
What faith really is, in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true. That—and that alone—is saving faith.
It was precisely this concept of saving faith which so clearly shaped the words of the apostle John when he wrote:

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life ... (lJn 5:9—13a).

How delightfully free this is of needless complications. Since we often accept human testimony, how much more ought we to accept divine testimony? To do this is to possess that testimony inwardly—within ourselves. The opposite of this—unbelief—is to make God out to be a liar.
Moreover, the divine testimony announces the gift of life that God gives in His Son, so that this life and the Son Himself are possessed together. Consequently, the original readers who have believed have God’s word for it that eternal life is theirs. His own infinitely credible testimony is the grounds for their personal assurance!
And when a person has God’s word for it, they have no need to seek assurance elsewhere.


Conclusion

In a justly famous passage about Abraham, the great biblical model of saving faith, Paul writes these words: “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness”’ (Ro 4:3).
The utter simplicity of this should be apparent to all. Abraham trusted God’s Word to him—he believed what God said—and this act of trust was put down to his account as righteousness. In other words, he was justified by faith.
Faith, then, is taking God at His Word. Saving faith is taking God at His Word in the gospel. It is nothing less than this. But it is also nothing more.
The effort to make it more is a tragic blemish on the history of the Christian church. The roots of this effort run deep into certain types of post-Reformation thought.8 And in the English-speaking world, this radically altered concept of saving faith can with considerable fairness be described as Puritan theology. Lordship salvation, in its best known contemporary form, simply popularizes the Puritanism to which it is heir.9
But today, as always, when the Scriptures are permitted to speak for themselves—and when the church has ears pre­pared to hear them—the simplicity and freeness of salvation can reemerge as a vital force in the consciousness of God’s people.
Nothing is more desirable than this result. But for such an aim to be realized, there is one thing we must be most careful to do. We must not fail at this crucial point. Simply stated, we must allow faith to be just that—faith.

 

[linssue55]

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Many important theological terms are involved in an accurate presentation of the meaning of the death of Christ. Among these important words are the following:

Atonement

In the Old Testament, atonement means “to cover,” that is, to put sin out of sight. It is not found in the New Testament except in a mistranslation of Romans 5:11 where it should be translated “reconciliation.” Etymologically the word is a combination of syllables “at-one-ment,” meaning “to be made one” or “to re­concile.” This meaning is not used in modern English. In cur­rent theology the word “atonement” is used to include all that Christ accomplished by His death and in this technical meaning includes far more than the Old Testament concept or its ety­mological derivation.

Expiation

Although not a biblical word, expiation may be defined as the act of bearing a penalty for sin.

Forgiveness

In theological use forgiveness is an act of God in which charges against a sinner are removed on the ground of proper satisfaction. It has a judicial rather than an emotional basis.

Guilt

A general word, guilt represents any just charge against a sinner for any kind of sin or transgression, whether a breach of conduct, violation of law, a sinful state, a sinful nature, or sin that is imputed. Used in a popular sense, it is often considered merely a violation of moral Jaw.

Justice

Derived from the Latin justus, justice means a strict rendering of what is due in the form of either merited reward or punish­ment.

Justification

In theology, justification is the judicial act of God declaring one to be righteous by imputation of righteousness to him. It is judicial not experiential, and all believers in Christ are equally justified.

Penalty

The word penalty represents the natural and judicial results of sin which end in suffering either in the form of retribution or chastening. In the case of Christ, His suffering was forensic, that is, representative and infinite in value and sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world.

Propitiation

In its theological usage propitiation has in view the satisfaction of all God’s righteous demands for judgment on the sinner by the redemptive act of the death of Christ.

Ransom

As used in theology, ransom represents the price paid by Christ to God in providing propitiation.

Reconciliation

The act of reconciliation in the salvation of a believer in Christ is the application of the death of Christ to the individual by the power of the Spirit changing his status from that of condemna­tion to complete acceptability to God. It reconciles man to God by elevating man to God’s level morally and, therefore, is far deeper in meaning than reconciliation on the human plane where harmony between parties estranged is often accomplished by compromise.

Redemption


As used in reference to the death of Christ, redemption has in view the payment of the price demanded by a holy God for the deliverance of the believer from the bondage and burden of sin. This payment results in the sinner being set free from his con­demnation and slavery to sin.

Remission

Coming from a Latin word meaning “to send back,” remission means “a sending away” of sin in the sense of forgiveness, pardon and freedom from punishment due. It is practically synonymous with forgiveness.

Righteousness

The basic concept of righteousness is “conforming to a moral standard,” especially the standard of God’s own righteousness. Through the death of Christ, righteousness may be imputed to the believer, may be seen in a relative righteousness and human conduct and, in reference to moral acts, may be prompted by the Spirit of God.

Sanctification

In its broad sense, sanctification is the act of God setting apart someone or something to holy use. It may be positional, refer­ring to the Christian’s position in Christ; experiential, resulting from the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian; or ultimate, speaking of the complete perfection of the believer in heaven.

Satisfaction

This is a synonym for propitiation.

Substitution

Equivalent to the term “vicarious” as used of the death of Christ, substitution has reference to the death of Christ on behalf of the sinner (John 1:29). Christ died as a Substitute for sinners on the cross accomplishing salvation for those who put their trust in Him

 

[fatpie42]

There is no such thing as a "standard of goodness" that exists independently of establishment. Such a claim is an obvious flaw in your logic and is a last ditch effort to stave off the problems inherent to such a view. That which is "good" must be defined. The question we must ask is, who/what sets that standard. I accept that God has established those standards while you seem to want to appeal to Railton (again, not sure who that is).

Umm...I'm curious about this. If non-believers, like yourself, "judge people for what they do," against whose standard of right and wrong do you judge them? Also, in what way is this system "working for you?" What does it accomplish?

I never claimed that you said morality is contingent upon the existance of God. However, such a discussion is, in my opinion, a moot issue, for there is a God and that God establishes the standards of morality by which we shall all be judged.

I do wish you could be consistent. If you wish to say that the only standard of morality is God then you cannot allow that morality is possible if God doesn't exist.

If on the other hand you are saying that a non-believer has to appeal to some 'other establishment' it would be necessary to ask why. After all, if we need to appeal to an establishment for morality, God does too.

That baby's parents may very well see that event as a tragedy and, in a certain sense, it is a tragedy. But, in the scheme of God's eternal plan, is it a "good" thing?

So God has no standard of morality so for him a baby's death is right? This sounds like a very dodgy argument (not due to any inconsistency, but just because it sounds like a very dodgy view of God).

You deny claiming that morality is relativistic so that would mean that you submit that there is a standard of morality against which all of our personal opinions of "good" and "bad" must be judged. Tell me, who is it then, if not God, that sets that standard?

Why does there need to be a 'person' to set a moral standard? Surely morality is determined by the way things in the world interact?

If I see someone in pain due to someone else's actions, how do I know it is wrong? Do I look at the person and see that they have been injured? Or do I say "what would God have to say about this?" I don't know about you, but I'd choose the former.

It looks like you could do with looking into meta-ethics. That is what Railton is involved with:

Not in the least!

Railton claims that moral good is linked very much with non-moral good. If I am dehydrated and am given the option of either milk or water, I should choose the water because milk will not rehydrate me. I may decide the milk instead of the water, but if I were fully informed and fully rational I would choose the water.

Railton considers moral good to be a combination of everybody's non-moral goods.

Sorry but this is either over my head (very likely possibility) or nonsensical. Could you dumb it down for me?

I don't really know how I can dumb Railton down any more. To be honest Railton's actual work is very long and complicated so I have already simplified things a great deal.

Basically if someone gets injured we would consider that bad for the individual who gets injured. It is a 'non-moral good' for that individual not to get injured.

Railton claims that in order to work out what moral good is, it is necessary to find out what the non-moral goods for everyone are. A good moral system would include all people.

Naturally some people think it would be good to have things that will harm them (a drug addict will want drugs for example) but Railton suggests that good is judged by what someone would want if they were fully informed and rational.

There is a naturalistic moral standard - problem solved.

I assure you that I wouldn't speak of immorality of an action as if immorality were an attribute of the action but, rather, as a defining characteristic

What's the difference?

Murder is an immoral action because it is the unwarranted taking of a life which God has given.

Here again, who is it that establishes what is "best" for society if not God?

I see you have brought God into part of the relations between objects which define morality. The thing is that I would insist that whether a human life should not be taken does not depend on who created it.

If I build something and I sell it to someone else does the person who built it have a right to destroy it? Here you will tell me that I misplacing the analogy because God is a special case, but I need to believe in God before I can agree with that. A non-theist does not believe in God and thus their standard of morality takes a 'valuing of life' as the reason not to murder rather than any 'obligation to the creator' of that life.

Well, this is another discussion but I do not subscribe to the faulty mainstream idea that a person becomes a believer because they want to become a believer. Faith in God is, itself, a gift from God. Therefore, if someone believes in God unto salvation then it is because God invincibly drew that person through a process called regeneration. None of this is the byproduct of a person's inherent inclination to care for others.

Absolutely, here we agree. But what I am suggesting is that an atheist is no less likely to be moral than a Christian is. (I did not say, as you seemed to presume, that morality was decided by human inclination.)

Well, unless I misunderstand, your description is not indicative of orthodox Christianity.

It is, nonetheless, the way an awful lot of Christians appear to think. I am very glad if you are not one of them

 

[Exist]

He desires that, but cannot force it.

Christians love to use this phrase, don't they?

He can't force them to love him, but he can, and does, force them in a position to where they will never be able to love him (if that person was born a jungle tribesman who never has the chance to hear of Jesus, for example).

If it's immoral to force them into a position to love, isn't it that much more immoral to force them into a position where they can't love?

 

[ChristIsTHEKing]

I don't understand this. How can someone, by deciding not to believe that have been made, be deciding they know better than their maker? I cannot decide I am better than my maker if I do even believe that I HAVE a maker, can I?

If I disagree with the opinion of a psysicist or an expert in any other field, then I am surely welcome to that opinion, even if it is unjustified, so long as I do not claim to be an expert myself. Also, in such cases where an expert tells me I am wrong, I have the benefit of knowing for certain that the expert is real and I have ways of checking his credentials.

I think my questions raised initially are still just as relevant now as when I posted them:

fatpie, so you believe then that you have no maker, so you then believe that your existence means nothing, there is no moral right or wrong, and you have no reason to be here...so why are you here?

And btw you're wrong, even though you believe you have no maker that does indirectly make you your own god because you live by your own defined rule-set and reasoning. And btw, if you take the time to actually look at the physicist that I pointed you too then you would realize that our very existence is the "incredible". The fact of the matter is that God has shown you His existence by every thing you see every day and by the people here and there that speak about His Glory but salvation is a two-way street, you must recognize your sins and accept Him.

 

[fatpie42]

fatpie, so you believe then that you have no maker, so you then believe that your existence means nothing, there is no moral right or wrong, and you have no reason to be here...so why are you here?

How does that even remotely work as an argument

1. There is no maker
2. If there is no maker existence means nothing (um... no)
3. If there is no maker there is no moral right or wrong (um... no)
4. If there is no maker I have no reason to be here.

Let me explain why I don't agree with point 4. There are a great deal of people who believe that there is a maker and have these crazy ideas that belief in a maker is somehow linked to morality (point 3) and human purpose (point 2). I wish to make sure that such intolerant religious beliefs are questioned.

I also used to believe in a maker and a great deal more, but I have discovered doubts concerning these things. I don't suspect that I shall ever believe that you need a God to justify morality or that you need a God to find purpose in life. I might, however, (just possibly) decide to believe in God and turn back to Christianity, but right now I see no reason to do any such thing and I have several good reasons to feel this way.

And btw you're wrong, even though you believe you have no maker that does indirectly make you your own god because you live by your own defined rule-set and reasoning. And btw, if you take the time to actually look at the physicist that I pointed you too then you would realize that our very existence is the "incredible". The fact of the matter is that God has shown you His existence by every thing you see every day and by the people here and there that speak about His Glory but salvation is a two-way street, you must recognize your sins and accept Him.

If I have made myself God, what have I to worry about? If I was God there wouldn't be any reason to worry about any other Gods. In fact if I had no way of showing they exist then I could dismiss them as a false God, couldn't I?

As for the writings of Polkinghorne, I must say that I have read some of his work but I don't see any reason to see beautiful mathematical formulae as a reason to believe that God exists. The world is a certain way and that's great, but it does not have to mean that a God exists. That kind of argument is called 'affirming the consequent' and it is one of the classic fallacies. (Polkinghorne will have his reasons for not considering his argument to be such a fallacy, but I'm afraid that I, as with many other philosophers, disagree with him).

Before you accuse me of being overly arrogant in dismissing Polkinghorne's arguments here, do realise that I have recently finished a degree in philosophy and have studied many philosophers who would disagree with Polkinghorne on this. There is no reason to support Polkinghorne over any of these other philosophers.

 

[matthewgoh]

From the lengthy debates in this thread, I can only draw 3 conclusions; 1) fatpie42 is an intelligent person, 2) God exists and 3) Jesus is the Son of God. I think I should keep this short, because I have a feeling this thread is going to be removed soon. I wish you will find God one day, regards and God bless.

 

[fatpie42]

fatpie42 is an intelligent person

Can't argue with that!

 

[Davis]

Fatpie how come you did not respond to the answer that I gave you about Jesus carrying our sins? I thought that was your hang up and now I supplied you with the information. I hope you had a great weekend. I also pray that you had time to mull over the answers of my christian brothers and sisters.

 

[fatpie42]

Fatpie how come you did not respond to the answer that I gave you about Jesus carrying our sins? I thought that was your hang up and now I supplied you with the information. I hope you had a great weekend. I also pray that you had time to mull over the answers of my christian brothers and sisters.

What answer? You told me you were going to SHOW me that Christ took our sins upon himself. What you did instead was use scripture to dogmatically assert it.

It's possible to use any number of scriptures to show any number of things concerning all sorts of people. What I want to know is why it makes any sense to imagine that someone's death has anything to do with the wrongdoing or guilt of others. I'm afraid quoting Bible verses isn't enough.

 

[Davis]

I'm afraid thats all I can give you. Its called faith. That info is more than sufficent. To someone that wants 100% pure evidence. Your never going to find it.
Faith is what Christ wants us to have. I'm sorry that I can assist you no farther. More than enough info has been provided. May God bless you and open your eyes.


I don't see why people can't take scripture seriously. Christopher Columbus sailed to america. Issac Newton did his thing. Abe Lincoln did his thing. We gain that knowledge through history books and records. What do you think the bible is? Its history my friend not only of the past but it reveals things of the future as well. Again I will be praying for you.

 

[fatpie42]

I don't see why people can't take scripture seriously. Christopher Columbus sailed to america. Issac Newton did his thing. Abe Lincoln did his thing. We gain that knowledge through history books and records. What do you think the bible is? Its history my friend not only of the past but it reveals things of the future as well. Again I will be praying for you.

The most obvious problem with what you have said here is that if you looked at the accounts of Christopher Columbus or Isaac Newton, you would discover that they were mistaken!

Christopher Columbus thought he had discovered a new route to China, when in fact he had found an entirely new continent. Isaac Newton claimed "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" but science now has established theories concerning how a planet is formed, so the motion of the planets is no less natural than any other phenomena in nature.

The way we can tell what is true and what is false in the accounts of these writers is through evidence and rational inquiry. If rational inquiry contradicts the Bible there are two options (i) either it is being interpreted wrongly, or (ii) that part of the Bible is incorrect.

I wish to suggest that the workings of the atonement do not make sense. Either there is another way of interpreting it so it doesn't defy all common sense, or I should dismiss that section of the Bible. Besides, 'took the sins of mankind on his body' sounds very metaphorical - so it is the meaning behind this text I am confused about - not whether it is true or not.

 

[Davis]

You can't pick and choose with the Bible. If you do that then what basis do you have on what is true and what isn't. The Bible doesnt contradict itself. Never has and never will.

I was just stating examples with those people. Bad ones at that I guess. I can go on faith.....you can't. So I can help you no further. I'm sorry. Some people need to have everything figured out to believe. Let me let you in on a little secret though. You will never figure everything out because we do not have the knowledge of our Creator.....God. His understanding is greater than we can even comprehend. Thats were faith kicks in. Trust in God. Trusting in Him and believing in Him has given me all the evidence I need.

 

[fatpie42]

You can't pick and choose with the Bible. If you do that then what basis do you have on what is true and what isn't. The Bible doesnt contradict itself. Never has and never will.

I never said the Bible contradicted itself.

 

[Davis]

So now you want meaning? I thought before you wanted to know if it was true or not. What kind of meaning are you looking for.

 

[fatpie42]

So now you want meaning? I thought before you wanted to know if it was true or not. What kind of meaning are you looking for.

Look, after Jesus' death there were tons of people trying to understand what the significance of this event was. Jesus obviously didn't tell anyone who was good at writing while he was still on Earth before the ascension, since the only person to write anything about how the atonement works appears to be St. Paul and he never saw Jesus in the flesh.

I'm afraid that Paul's explanations of how the atonement work are too legalistic (as I have said before). God is beyond any human court of law so He doesn't need to answer to one. Even being subject to his own justice system it seems hugely contrived to suggest that God should need to experience human death in order to pay for human sin. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me, but I doubt you have any answers (especially since you think the Bible already explains it clearly and sensibly - which is precisely what I don't find myself.)

 

[Davis]

I suggest you go find a pastor and talk to him about this. I think thats about as great of explanation that your going to get.