Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:45:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1785 times
|
| |
|
|
Massive SNIP
(Read my first reply for these sections).
> > Then later, out of love God sent his son Jesus to be the ultimate offering
> > and give everyone everywhere a chance to be righteous and live with God.
>
> Putting aside for a moment the question of why God waited so long to do
> this, I have never really understood the mechanics of this. God's son is
> Jesus, and yet Jesus is God. So God goes to Earth in the form of a man who
> eventually suffers the standard Roman punishment for sedition, crucufixion.
> How is it that God having himself crucified is an atonement for our sins?
>
> And what really changed after Jesus? You say that now "everyone everywhere
> a chance to be righteous and live with God". This was not the case before
> Jesus? It seems like both before and after Jesus there were righteous
> people and non-righteous people. Was the whole Jesus thing just to make all
> those gruesome animal sacrifices unnecessary?
This is the key to any debate on God's love. As it was his greatest act
of love. I will deal with your 3 points in order:
1) The mechanics:
Think of a 3 leaf clover, the leaf's being God, Jesus, and the Holy
Spirit (or Father, Son and Holy Ghost... you know who I mean). If you cut
off one leaf... it dies. But the other 2 are still alive and so is the
plant. Jesus *did* die (Luke the physician was there and said the blood and
water seperated in his body). The God raised him from the dead.
2)"How is it that God having himself crucified is an atonement for our sins?"
I think you were reading the Bible with a slight preference by the time
you got to the NT. This is answered in many passages but I'll try my hand at
in now.
Basicaly, God created Adam and Eve *without* sin, or a default to God as
someone was talking about earlier. They sinned,thus contaminating all their
decendants, everyone, and changing the default to sin. Hence we are now all
born with sin. Yes some sacrifices dissuaded punishment but it was more like
pulling on a clean cloak over a dirty one.
Then God sent Jesus to the world, as the son of God he was born with a
default to God but yet as a man (not a god in disguise but as a man.)
Jesus lived his whole life without sin. Something no one else could have
done because of their default to evil. Then he died for our sins (literally
taking everyones sins upon himself and accepting full judgement as if they
were all his). Then, after 3 days, God raised him from the dead and after a
few more days he assended to heaven.
Now anyone who asks Jesus can be *forgiven* all their sins. Their sins are
gone! God no longer sees you as a sinner but he sees you as righteous if you
ask Jesus to forgive you your sins. It is a permanent solution. All who ask
Jesus can become clean and be able to hav a relationship with God (as he
intended) without fear that a new sin in his presence will bring judgement
on you.
God also invited all who believe to be adopted into his family, to
become the sons of God.
> > This was the Second Covenant and it still holds today.
>
> *What* is the Second Covenant?
Ask Jesus to be your savior and forgive your sins. And he will. Thus
allowing you access to God.
>
> But if Jesus was God, and God is not currently dead... who died on the
> cross? How hard is it to do anything humans find hard to do when you're God?
>
> I guess I'm assuming you believe, like most modern Christians, that Jesus
> *was/is* God. If not, let me know.
See above.
> > I personaly would find it hard to die so
> > that someone else could live. Especially if that person was going to sit
> > around 2000 odd years later declaring what a mean git I was (no offence,
> > just an illustration).
>
> None taken. But, you know, if I was really, fully, and totally convinced
> beyond a shadow of a doubt (as I assume Jesus was) that my suffering and
> death would save the lives all humans from now until the end of time, I
> don't really think it would be all that hard. In fact, when you think about
> it, you'd be have to be one selfish %$^#& to not do it.
It is easy to think about good people in this context. Think about what
you would do if someone told you you could die for everyone on murder row
and they would be let go. (Not neccesairly ever to thank you or even think
well of you.)
> > In this new covenant anyone at all could be free of their sins and live in
> > God's love by accepting Jesus as the go between. Amazing Grace.
>
> Who couldn't be free of their sins befor Jesus? I thought there was a
> system of atonement *before* Jesus. And if even the gentiles were, as you
> say, "welcome to the covenant", who was excluded?
You could cover the sins before. Now you can take on Jesus'
righteousness by accepting his forgiveness.
> > > > God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful,
> > > > *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that.
> > >
> > > Good choice, God.
> >
> > Yes it was. If God came down now in all his glory with a heavenly host
> > and the ocean dried up and all the mountains fell over, and everyone all
> > over the globe could see him at once I would be perty inclined to believe in
> > him, what about you?
>
> I'd believe in something, alright. But I certainly wouldn't believe it was
> an all-loving or merciful God unless his actions demonstrated it. And
> drying up the oceans and knocking over mountains doesn't make for a very
> good first impression. @8^)
Just trying to make the point that you couldn't miss him.
Forgive my ignorance, what does this mean?: @8^)
SNIP
> Again, I would love God if he seemed love-able, not just because he is
> exists and is more powerful than me. I think God could quite easily prove
> his existence to me, and to all mankind, without it compelling us to feel
> one way or another about him, and so our free will would be entirely intact.
SNIP
> > > That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting
> > > across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more
> > > effective for him to just give it to people directly without some
> > > incompetent go-betweens garbling it.
> >
> > Same as Above.
>
> No, giving humans a clear message does not make up their minds for them, it
> just gives them the most accurate information to consider when we use our
> free will to make up our own minds.
I think this was more God's approach in the Old Testament and even after
seeing mighty acts the people wouldn't listen. After Jesus he went with free
will to choose faith. Most people find that when they become a christian
they experiance God in some way and then he draws back for a time. The Free
Will was all about letting you `walk on your own two feet. God wanted
friends and family, not stooges. You have to show some faith. And that, I
personaly believe, makes you by far the better person. God has always
appreciated faith. And as you read the Bible it is people with faith who do
most of the impressive things.
> > > Imagine that, for some reason, you won't be able to see or have any contact
> > > with your young son for the next ten years.
> > SNIP This is not a good example because it forgets the free will issue.
>
> Forgets? That was the whole point of it: that free will is not impaired by
> having the most accurate information to work with.
>
> > > So I think my point is still valid that if God has some important message
> > > for his people, he should not beat around the bush, using incompetent
> > > messangers, and revealing pieces of the puzzle over thousands of years, but
> > > just come right out and say it clearly and consistently to everyone.
He could do that. And convince most people. But God wanted his people to
be strong in faith, love, and the rest of the fruits of the spirit. As Jesus
said "You have seen and believed, blessed are those who have not seen and
yet believe." I think if God had wanted your approach he would have created
us all in a giant spectators box in heaven. Never doing anythiing, just
watching.
SNIP
> >
> > The first covenant was for everyone but only the jews really took him up
> > on it (if half heartidly)
>
> The first covenant was for everyone? If the only evidence you have of that
> is the passage about Abraham being a "blessing to all nations", I think that
> ambiguous phrase is far outweighed by all God's talk throughout the Old
> Testament of having the Israelites be *set aside* as God's personal
> possession, his chosen people. You can't have a "chosen people" if it's not
> an exclusive club. God promises are to Abraham and his descendants. That's
> the Jews. Almost all mention of the gentiles in the Old Testament is about
> how they are to either be properly avoided or killed.
It depends how you define 'sons of Abraham' as sons literally, as sons
meaning sharers in his faith that God liked, or both. I have always believed
both.
> "stubborn warnings". Have I been making stubborn
> warnings? About what?
No, just an example.
SNIP
> > I don't write anything in the Bible off.
>
> It's good to have you as part of this debate, then, offering a very
> different take on the Old Testament than John (Neal, not the apostle).
Thanks.
SNIP
> > Free will again. God doesn't arm twist.
>
> I'm not asking God to twist my arm! Try this analogy: If you wanted to buy
> a car, and were deciding between two cars, wouldn't you want all the
> information you could get about these two cars? Wouldn't it help you make
> the most informed choice if you had all that information presented to you in
> clearest, most accurate form possible? Or would you rather base your
> decision on some rumor that you heard from a friend of a friend of a friend?
> It's not the differnce between having free will or having your arm twisted,
> it's the differnce between making an informed decision and making a guess
> based on garbled information.
Think of it this way. I am a human living in a physical world surrounded
by a spiritual one I can't see. Ever since Adam/Eve's failure (we all know
who to blame on that one. LOL.) I work perty much entirely in the physical.
I have all ready been cut off from the realm in which most of God's work
goes on. God wants to raise me back up to the intended level of
friend/son(and daughter in some cases). He could show me everything, roll
away all my physical surroundings and say 'look I'm God, you're about the
sise of a germ'. But he wants me to find my way back up to him. That way by
the time I get there I will have a faith and understanding in God. I will be
able to take up the offered place not just be the lowest on the scale.
SNIP
> If
> you want to make a case for the existence of objective morality, I invite
> you to, but I would ask that you start a brand new thread on OTD to
> accomodate it.
I think there is established good and evil. If not how can you call God
mean or evil? Maybe he choose a different set of morals for himself then you
would like to put on him.
I think I'll drop this issue for now, if that is O.K.
SNIP
> >
> > Closer then I thought...
>
> Hmm? What's closer to what than you thought?
Sorry, I accidentaly cut out a few lines there. I was just refering to the
nearness of the examples.
I am going to do the examples next post (Sorry I have very limited time.)
> > Try all the examples of mercy despite the need for judgement in the
> > Old Testemant.
>
> I thought you said God *couldn't* be merciful in the face of the need for
> judgment (in the Old Testament). If he *could* be merciful despite the need
> for judgment, and repeatedly is not merciful (as the above examples show),
> he is back to being a cruel and unusual God, which is my whole point.
He can be merciful if you are not sinning in his direct prescence. eg
Jonah.
> > > > > By having his son/self get crucified by the Romans. Somehow I don't feel
> > > > > reconciled.
You have to accept it. (See above) It doesn't do anything for you if
you don't.
SNIP (next post)
> > > You see it as amazing, I see it as silly.
> >
> > I'm glad!
Again I cut the wrong line. I meant I'm glad of John's example.
> I thought you were going to cry for me in heaven because I didn't convert?
>
> > > And the whole forgiving the people who crucified him doesn't really jibe
> > > with the portrait of God from the Old Testament, and since there's a lot
> > > more evidence on that side, it's hard for me to think of the Biblical God as
> > > anything like forgiving.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence that from the cross he called down fire on his
> > killers?
>
> Well, there was a big earthquake. That might have killed some people. @8^)
> But no, I was saying that, sure, Jesus/God really does seem to forgive his
> killers (at least in one of the gospels), but that there is so much contrary
> evidence in the Old Testament that God is not in the least bit merciful or
> forgiving, that this one instance of forgiveness is dwarfed. Besides, if
> Jesus is God, he didn't really even die!
See my explanation.
SNIP next post
> > Christianity requires faith. I can't make you believe it I can only defend
> > what I have accepted as, and is, true. (no offense!)
>
> Also, the "what I have accepted as, *and is*, true" comes off as, "oh, and
> by the way, even if my arguments aren't particularly convincing to you, just
> remember, the important thing is: I'm right, and you're wrong". Not the
> most civil way to sign off.
Sorry not intended as rude. All I meant is that this whole thing
requires faith. Something I could not debate into you (as must now be obvious.)
>
> -Rev. Smith
Feel to wait for my final post. Forgive the dis-jointedness.
BTW How does one finish a debate in .debate LOL
BTW2 How do you get to this message board. (I look it up by searching red sea.
Nathan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) These points aren't entirely correct and without going into a full bible study I will write what I have found to be true The points 1-3. God is not like unto a plant, you ought to look at Him more like this- God the invisible spirit who is the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post. (...) Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this context it only makes sense (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
