"Jesus loves me, this I know"

[radhead]

I always believed in Jesus as a young child. But this particular song bothered me a little. I believed that He loved everyone, just like the song conveys. But I also wondered, why do we have to be told this?

Why would we need a "mediator" for God? Is God really so threatening that we have to imagine a Son of God who is less threatening?

This really really really makes me believe that the whole Judeo-Christian image of God is a false one, based on earthly authorities and the ruling class. People obviously put their hopes in the younger generation, or, in other words, the child of a ruling authority.

I really think that other cultures and religions have a better image of God. A God who loves everyone and is not threatening or vengeful against certain individuals who don't conform.

Has anyone else felt this way?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would we need a "mediator" for God? Is God really so threatening that we have to imagine a Son of God who is less threatening?

The following is the cinematic adaption (from the 2003 movie Luther) of an actual sermon Martin Luther once gave:

"Terrible. Unforgiving. That's how I saw God. Punishing us in this life, committing us to Purgatory after death, sentencing sinners to burn in hell for all eternity.

But I was wrong.

Those who see God as angry do not see Him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud has been drawn across His face. If we truly believe that Christ is our Savior then we have a God of love, and to see God in faith is to look upon His friendly heart."

When we see God as angry, threatening, etc we are not seeing God correctly. We are seeing God hidden behind a veil of smoke and fire; but God, as God truly is, is the One who presents Himself to us in and through Jesus. Jesus, as mediator, does not mean God the Father is a distant, angry, capricious god and we need Jesus to shield us from Him; it means that God makes Himself known to us through Jesus. Through Jesus we discover the fatherly, friendly heart of God as Jesus speaks of God as His Father, who is full of grace, kindness, compassion, and love toward the world.

ETA what I think is another relevant quote:

"This is what John is talking about at the beginning of his Gospel when he calls Jesus the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history - and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human." - Fr. Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, p.104

-CryptoLutheran

 

[radhead]

ViaCrucis, are you saying that Luther might agree with me? I know that I really liked the ideas of Zwingli, who I think was very forward thinking for his time.

As far as the "hatred" of Jesus, I believe he was hated by suggesting that spirit of God is found inside of us. Most traditional Christians would still hate the real Jesus, I believe, for eternity. That "distant" and "threatening" side of people is something I encounter in Christianity. I don't think that the man Jesus was anything like Christians, as Gandhi noticed. I believed that traditional Christianity is a kind of beast.

 

[ViaCrucis]

ViaCrucis, are you saying that Luther might agree with me? I know that I really liked the ideas of Zwingli, who I think was very forward thinking for his time.

As far as the "hatred" of Jesus, I believe he was hated by suggesting that spirit of God is found inside of us. Most traditional Christians would still hate the real Jesus, I believe, for eternity. That "distant" and "threatening" side of people is something I encounter in Christianity. I don't think that the man Jesus was anything like Christians, as Gandhi noticed. I believed that traditional Christianity is a kind of beast.

Think of it like this:

There is a great king who lives in a high castle, reigning over a kingdom with diverse subjects. The people of the kingdom have never seen the king, and they are often very violent and unruly--they frequently murder one another, cheat one another, commit acts of injustice against one another, and they also often--because they have never seen the king--act like there is no king or at times invent their own kings to follow. Once in a while the king gives a message to one of his servants to tell the people something. He tells them his laws: to act justly, to act kindly, to love one another, etc; and when they do not one of his messengers reprimands the people. For some, as they have disobeyed the king's laws, they see in these messages a terrifying, distant lord who is angry with them; after all, the king's messengers have told them they are acting unjustly and the king wants them to be and act just.

But one day the king's son, the prince, comes down from the castle to dwell among the people. The prince, unlike any of the messengers before, has seen the king, the prince knows his father very well and knows the love his father has for his subjects and his kingdom. And so the prince goes to all the villages and explains what the king is like: the king is a good and loving father, and desires to treat all his subjects as his own children. He goes into the orphanages and the poor houses and says that that the king's justice is about these, the very least of these. We see the prince spending time with orphans, widows, the poor, going to eat meals with prostitutes, extortionists, drunks, lepers, outcasts, and various "sinners"; and the prince chastises those who have accumulated wealth by treading on the necks of the least fortunate, but through everything he says that the way the king desires for his kingdom to be is where the very least are regarded highest, and invites people to see the king through himself, through his words and actions. To know the king through his son who has, from the beginning of the kingdom, known the king and lived with him.

Many of the people are angered because the prince is saying things that make them uncomfortable, he's telling them to give up living solely for themselves and their own gain and instead living for one another in love; there are merchants, aristocrats, teachers, and various other noble people; and those who have set themselves up as lords, and in some cases others have come to thinking of themselves as kings and they like their power and using it against the weak and disenfranchised; and so they in their outrage commit themselves to putting the prince to death, they overcome him, and lynch him, hanging him from a tree to put an end to his nuisance and publicly humiliate him.

We have frequently seen God as the king in the high castle, distant, and thinking of him as angry and aloof. What Luther is saying, and what Fr. McCabe is saying, is that this isn't the right way to see God, the right way to see God is as He has made Himself known in and through Jesus.

"No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." - John 1:18

"If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him." - John 14:7

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ananda]

I always believed in Jesus as a young child. But this particular song bothered me a little. I believed that He loved everyone, just like the song conveys. But I also wondered, why do we have to be told this?

Why would we need a "mediator" for God? Is God really so threatening that we have to imagine a Son of God who is less threatening?

This really really really makes me believe that the whole Judeo-Christian image of God is a false one, based on earthly authorities and the ruling class. People obviously put their hopes in the younger generation, or, in other words, the child of a ruling authority.

I really think that other cultures and religions have a better image of God. A God who loves everyone and is not threatening or vengeful against certain individuals who don't conform.

Has anyone else felt this way?

Is he really less threatening? "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

 

[radhead]

ViaCrucis, you have basically described the Judeo-Christian god which I am referring to, and which I think is false.

My point is, where does that image come from? It comes from church teaching. It's not a natural view of God, I don't think.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I always believed in Jesus as a young child. But this particular song bothered me a little. I believed that He loved everyone, just like the song conveys. But I also wondered, why do we have to be told this?

Why would we need a "mediator" for God? Is God really so threatening that we have to imagine a Son of God who is less threatening?

This really really really makes me believe that the whole Judeo-Christian image of God is a false one, based on earthly authorities and the ruling class. People obviously put their hopes in the younger generation, or, in other words, the child of a ruling authority.

I really think that other cultures and religions have a better image of God. A God who loves everyone and is not threatening or vengeful against certain individuals who don't conform.

Has anyone else felt this way?

Regardless of the Son/Father and OT/NT stuff, I've always had a problem with this idea of the God loving "everyone". Specifically in combination with the rest of christian theology, like "salvation" and "hell" doctrines.

Combine all that with the idea of God being "just" and "forgiving" (which in itself, is already a contradiction in terms, since forgiveness literally is the suspension of justice) and the whole picture makes no sense at all.

For example: I love my son. Pretty much unconditionally. I can not imagine any action my kid could engage in, that could make me lock him up in the basement and torture him. Not even for a little while. And here, we have a God which is supposedly goodness itself, all-just, forgiving and who "loves all humans". Yet, not only does he have his subjects tortured, he has them tortured for eternity. And not even for actual wrongdoings, but simply for "not loving him back".

It makes absolutely no sense at all and it is self-contradicting to the highest degree.

I was never a theist. I had a secular upbringing. Gods simply never came up. Religions were non-issues in my youth. At age 16, I transferred to a catholic school (for logistic reasons, primarily). There, there was off course a mandatory religious class. That was basically my first real encounter with christian theology. Pretty soon, this stuff hit me as downright bizar.

Quite instantly, I had the greatest difficulty with seeing a consistent character description of this entity. It simply didn't add up. Free minded as I was, I, off course, entered into a discussion with the teacher - trying to understand. The discussion lasted for some 20 minutes. It would end up being our only real open discussion. In the end, he told me to "just shut up and let me continue". No other teacher in ANY class, ever had to end it with such a show-stopping, mind-blocking statement.

That, for me, was a clear sign that I was bang on the money. He had no answers for my questions. And instead of admitting it, he just told me to stop asking questions. And I was all like "waddaya tryin' to hide bro?". The remainder of the year, the guy gave me a failing grade for the class, which wasn't a problem since I always aced all my other, actually important, classes. Off course, I didn't stop asking questions whenever something struck me as odd or inconsistent. He didn't like that. Hence all the failing grades. I didn't care. In fact, after a while it started to mean that I was doing a good job as far as I was concerned


(not saying all religious teachers would act that way - I just felt it was a nice place to put this little anecdote)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I always believed in Jesus as a young child. But this particular song bothered me a little. I believed that He loved everyone, just like the song conveys. But I also wondered, why do we have to be told this?

Why would we need a "mediator" for God? Is God really so threatening that we have to imagine a Son of God who is less threatening?

This really really really makes me believe that the whole Judeo-Christian image of God is a false one, based on earthly authorities and the ruling class. People obviously put their hopes in the younger generation, or, in other words, the child of a ruling authority.

I really think that other cultures and religions have a better image of God. A God who loves everyone and is not threatening or vengeful against certain individuals who don't conform.

Has anyone else felt this way?

No, not really. When I look at the conceptual structures of "other" cultures and religions, I don't see much in the way of salvageable material. No, for me, the whole concept of Jesus as Mediator and as 'the' Son of God is head and shoulders above the alternatives; it's more sensible, more practical, more just, and more loving than anything that has been contrived, either before or after Jesus' entrance into the world.

So, boys.....1..2..3.. hit it!!! .... "This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine..."

...until we "all" get to heaven!

2PhiloVoid

 

[ExodusMe]

Regardless of the Son/Father and OT/NT stuff, I've always had a problem with this idea of the God loving "everyone". Specifically in combination with the rest of christian theology, like "salvation" and "hell" doctrines.

Christian's affirm 'God loves everyone' based on the cross of Jesus where Christ dies for the sins of the world. They hold this view in combination of other doctrines (God's Divine Justice) with the understanding that humanity has the free will to reject or accept God's free gift of salvation. Therefore, Christian's are able to hold the idea that God is Just and Loving, because it is the sinner who decides the fate of their soul. By rejecting God's free gift of salvation sinners condemn themselves. P.S. The free will of humanity is debated a lot in Christianity so I am only giving you my POV...

Combine all that with the idea of God being "just" and "forgiving" (which in itself, is already a contradiction in terms, since forgiveness literally is the suspension of justice) and the whole picture makes no sense at all.

Forgiveness is not the suspension of justice. That is just a corrupted view of justice. For instance, if a person was sexually assaulted they can forgive their assailant while maintaining that they be punished for their crime (a prison sentence). There is no incompatibility with this persons ethics. Likewise, God can forgive sinners, but there must still be punishment for the sinners deeds. This is the cross of Jesus. He died for sinners in their place.

For example: I love my son. Pretty much unconditionally. I can not imagine any action my kid could engage in, that could make me lock him up in the basement and torture him. Not even for a little while. And here, we have a God which is supposedly goodness itself, all-just, forgiving and who "loves all humans". Yet, not only does he have his subjects tortured, he has them tortured for eternity. And not even for actual wrongdoings, but simply for "not loving him back".

It makes absolutely no sense at all and it is self-contradicting to the highest degree.

His justice requires that he punishes sinners. If they do not accept his free gift of grace His perfect justice requires that these sinners be punished. If he didn't punish sinners for their crimes he would not be just. Likewise, if your son murdered someone and you didn't turn him in that would not make you an 'excellent father'. It would make you an unjust criminal.

I was never a theist. I had a secular upbringing. Gods simply never came up. Religions were non-issues in my youth. At age 16, I transferred to a catholic school (for logistic reasons, primarily). There, there was off course a mandatory religious class. That was basically my first real encounter with christian theology. Pretty soon, this stuff hit me as downright bizar.

Likewise, I am a Protestant Christian and I view Catholicism bizarre as well.

 

[skalle]

The very fact that we need a savior at all leads me to believe that God, if he were to exist, is hardly loving.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Christian's affirm 'God loves everyone' based on the cross of Jesus where Christ dies for the sins of the world. They hold this view in combination of other doctrines (God's Divine Justice) with the understanding that humanity has the free will to reject or accept God's free gift of salvation. Therefore, Christian's are able to hold the idea that God is Just and Loving, because it is the sinner who decides the fate of their soul.

The problem with that, as I see it, is that it is anything but "just".
Because the "judgement" passed has nothing whatsoever to do with how one behaved and everything with what one believes.

Having said that, it also completely escapes me what is "just", or even just "sensible", about having yourself/your son tortured and killed for the crimes of another. Nore does it make sense to me how that is the only way that I would be able to "forgive" those crimes of others.

The part about honest and sincere repenting/regretting your crimes as a conditional for being forgiven - okay. But how does a blood sacrifice of a completely unrelated person change that? It doesn't. Repentence is something internal in the "sinner" and personal.

P.S. The free will of humanity is debated a lot in Christianity so I am only giving you my POV...

Sure.

Forgiveness is not the suspension of justice.

Ow, I beg the differ!!!

Justice means that you get punished/rewarded in proportion to your actual actions.
When you are forgiven for your crimes, it means you are shown mercy for your crimes and as a result won't be submitted to punishment.

So yes, forgiveness is the suspension of justice. Perfect justice means unescapable punishment in proportion to wrongdoings.

Perhaps there is confusion here between "forgiveness" and "mercy". In this context, I tie both together. In the sense that forgiveness implies mercy.

For instance, if a person was sexually assaulted they can forgive their assailant while maintaining that they be punished for their crime (a prison sentence).

Then what does the forgiveness entail?
What does it mean to "forgive" someone, in that case?

There is no incompatibility with this persons ethics. Likewise, God can forgive sinners, but there must still be punishment for the sinners deeds. This is the cross of Jesus. He died for sinners in their place.

In other words, no sinners are punished. A scapegoat is punished. The sinners themselves are thus shown mercy. ie: suspension of justice.

ps: I also consider it the very opposite of justice, to punish a scapegoat for the crimes of others.

If he didn't punish sinners for their crimes he would not be just. Likewise, if your son murdered someone and you didn't turn him in that would not make you an 'excellent father'.

Suppose I turn him in.
The guy goes to court and is put on trial for murder. Life in prison hangs over his head.
The judge asks if he repents, he says yes.
The judge says that he'll put his own son in prison and asks my son if he accepts that "free gift". My son says "yes".

My son now not only doesn't have to endure a prison sentence, he's even rewarded with a mansion in some paradise where he'll enjoy eternal bliss.

Would you call that "justice", then?
I sure wouldn't. The loved ones of his victim most certainly wouldn't.

If any real-life judge would do such a thing, it would be seen as nothing short of scandalously unethical!

It would make you an unjust criminal.

Indeed. And I would think the same of that judge who punishes a scapegoat instead of my son.

 

[ExodusMe]

The problem with that, as I see it, is that it is anything but "just".
Because the "judgement" passed has nothing whatsoever to do with how one behaved and everything with what one believes.

Having said that, it also completely escapes me what is "just", or even just "sensible", about having yourself/your son tortured and killed for the crimes of another. Nore does it make sense to me how that is the only way that I would be able to "forgive" those crimes of others.

The part about honest and sincere repenting/regretting your crimes as a conditional for being forgiven - okay. But how does a blood sacrifice of a completely unrelated person change that? It doesn't. Repentence is something internal in the "sinner" and personal.


Ow, I beg the differ!!!

Justice means that you get punished/rewarded in proportion to your actual actions.
When you are forgiven for your crimes, it means you are shown mercy for your crimes and as a result won't be submitted to punishment.

So yes, forgiveness is the suspension of justice. Perfect justice means unescapable punishment in proportion to wrongdoings.

Perhaps there is confusion here between "forgiveness" and "mercy". In this context, I tie both together. In the sense that forgiveness implies mercy.



Then what does the forgiveness entail?
What does it mean to "forgive" someone, in that case?



In other words, no sinners are punished. A scapegoat is punished. The sinners themselves are thus shown mercy. ie: suspension of justice.

ps: I also consider it the very opposite of justice, to punish a scapegoat for the crimes of others.

Suppose I turn him in.
The guy goes to court and is put on trial for murder. Life in prison hangs over his head.
The judge asks if he repents, he says yes.
The judge says that he'll put his own son in prison and asks my son if he accepts that "free gift". My son says "yes".

My son now not only doesn't have to endure a prison sentence, he's even rewarded with a mansion in some paradise where he'll enjoy eternal bliss.

Would you call that "justice", then?
I sure wouldn't. The loved ones of his victim most certainly wouldn't.

If any real-life judge would do such a thing, it would be seen as nothing short of scandalously unethical!

Indeed. And I would think the same of that judge who punishes a scapegoat instead of my son.

Christianity is the only just religion on earth.

I will preface this by saying my studies in this topic are light, but there is a wide body of literature if you wish to research penal substitution atonement.

To start, there is some vocabulary we can distinguish. First, we are talking about retributive justice, which reformed Christian's say is essential to God's nature. Retributive justice is this idea that sin is not only a type of debt (contrary to popular rhetoric among Christian's) that needs to be repaid, but it is a crime that requires punishment. This is the 'retributive' sense of punishment. Sin requires punishment. We can contrast this with another theory of punishment called 'consequentialism' which essentially states that sin (or crimes) do not require punishment because of the moral wrong doing of the offender, but the punishment is a consequence to rebuild the character of the person and to benefit society (i.e. the punishment will help the person become more moral or it will benefit society because they will not longer be in society to commit moral errors and instead be in prison or something).

Understanding retributive justice is essential to this topic, because if we understand it appropriately we will know that there is actually no way for 'a god' to forgive the sins of mankind a part from the Christian doctrine of penal substitution. This is how I arrive at the first sentence I provided.

The problem with the average persons understanding of this type of karma-justice doesn't match reality. You state "it has nothing to do with what the person has done and everything with what they believe". I take this to mean some type of karma debt where a person can outdo their bad actions by doing a bunch of good actions. This isn't just and it doesn't match reality. Think about a surgeon who heals people his entire life. Let's say he heals 245 people over his life time and then one day retires and in a fit of rage kills his wife. Would it be just to say "well you saved 245 people, so this thing with your wife we will let slide"? No, our laws wouldn't even allow that. Under law it would be required for him to be punished for the murder of his wife.

How can humans be saved then? In my personal life I came to this realization. If humanity has committed crimes against a Holy God, then my sin requires punishment. How do I repay a Holy and Just God? If sin is a crime that requires punishment, then humanity has no way to be redeemed to God except for the penal substitution of Jesus Christ. There is no amount of 'good' someone can do to 'wipe out' the punishment that is required for treason against a Holy God.

How is it just for God to punish Jesus for the crimes of others? A criteria for a proper actor of penal substitution atonement is provided by Francis Turretin in Institutes of Elenctic Theology. There are five attributes. This person must have.... 1) a common nature of sinner and substitute (2) the free consent of the substitute (3) the substitute has power over his life to determine what is done with it (4) the substitute has the power to bear all of the punishment that is due to us and to take it away (5) the substitute must be sinless himself.

I think this can be answered well if we explore what retributive justice means when we say 'sin is a crime that requires punishment'. A punishment would include harsh treatment, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen to the person who commits the crime. Regarding #4 the common explanation is that Christ has an 'infinite dignity' that is able to make payment for the 'infinite transgression' humans have committed against God.

All in all, I would agree that at face value Christianity seems entirely foolish. Christian's themselves would agree with your notion of our belief, so I don't expect to convince you of it's power. I do think that if you are interested you need to look deeply into what sin is and if God exists how could he forgive you for treason against his kingdom.

Love and blessings to you

1 Corinthians 1:18-19

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God

[18] For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (ESV)

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem with the average persons understanding of this type of karma-justice doesn't match reality. You state "it has nothing to do with what the person has done and everything with what they believe". I take this to mean some type of karma debt where a person can outdo their bad actions by doing a bunch of good actions. This isn't just and it doesn't match reality. Think about a surgeon who heals people his entire life. Let's say he heals 245 people over his life time and then one day retires and in a fit of rage kills his wife. Would it be just to say "well you saved 245 people, so this thing with your wife we will let slide"? No, our laws wouldn't even allow that. Under law it would be required for him to be punished for the murder of his wife.

It seems you misunderstood my quote. I'm not sure where you took the quote, but it seems as if it is from another thread. However, it does sound like something I would say in a specific context.

That context being, the grounds on wich souls are judged according to christian theology.
The point the quote makes, is that in that theology (and most others, actually), the very first requirement is to "believe" the religion.

I even think, if I remember correctly, that the bible even states somewhere that there unbelief is an "unpardonable sin". So you end up with a system where genuine good people end up in punishment, while evil people who "repented and got saved" enjoy eternal bliss.

What else can I conclude from such a thing, then the quote mentioned?
In christianity, what you do or how you behave, isn't nearly as important as what you believe.

If sin is a crime that requires punishment, then humanity has no way to be redeemed to God except for the penal substitution of Jesus Christ

Why? You just assert this. WHY is that the case?
And how does it even make sense or work?
How is it justice, to punish a scapegoat for the crimes of others?
How does punishing a scapegoat free a way for forgiveness that isn't possible without the scapegoat?

There is no amount of 'good' someone can do to 'wipe out' the punishment that is required for treason against a Holy God.

But you get to whipe it out by merely believing the undemonstrable crucifision story with the undemonstrable and fantastical claims about a resurection?

How does that make sense? How is that just?

How is it just for God to punish Jesus for the crimes of others? A criteria for a proper actor of penal substitution atonement is provided by Francis Turretin in Institutes of Elenctic Theology. There are five attributes. This person must have.... 1) a common nature of sinner and substitute (2) the free consent of the substitute (3) the substitute has power over his life to determine what is done with it (4) the substitute has the power to bear all of the punishment that is due to us and to take it away (5) the substitute must be sinless himself.

I think this can be answered well if we explore what retributive justice means when we say 'sin is a crime that requires punishment'. A punishment would include harsh treatment, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen to the person who commits the crime.

You're just preaching here. I'm not seeing an explanation on how it is just.
You're just claiming it is just.

Regarding #4 the common explanation is that Christ has an 'infinite dignity' that is able to make payment for the 'infinite transgression' humans have committed against God.

And off course, it's the same theology that first merely claims that we even require any "saving", and then conveniently provides the only pathway towards this mysterious "salvation".

Sounds an awefull lot like snake-oil salesmen, you know...

Also, regarding #4.... just claiming that this entity has the power and that it somehow works for some reason, is not an explanation either.

All in all, I would agree that at face value Christianity seems entirely foolish. Christian's themselves would agree with your notion of our belief, so I don't expect to convince you of it's power. I do think that if you are interested you need to look deeply into what sin is and if God exists how could he forgive you for treason against his kingdom.

The problem is that "looking deeper" inevitably ends up in just having to believe a bunch of assertions / premises for not apparant rational reason.

In the end, it simply stays a matter of mere belief.


I can't bring myself to mere belief, without lying to myself.