Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:59:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1532 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal and others write:
> If you note in the Gospels, Jesus forgave sins while He was still alive.
> "Taking the sins of the world" sounds like Theology to me. Symbolism is a
> powerful tool (ie Jesus =Lamb of God-think Passover), but I doubt such saving
> action *required* death. Besides, don't be so temporal. We are talking
> about a God who is out of time.
One thing that's always bothered me about the dying-on-the-cross thing is
the question of how could He have done otherwise? I mean, if He knew, as I
suspect He must have known, that His death would redeem mankind, wouldn't it
have been unspeakbably selfish not to allow it? Additionally, His status as
the Son of God can't excuse Him from such responsibility; on the contrary, it
requires Him to submit to crucifixion, since He is uniquely suited to redeem
mankind in that fashion.
If I had credible reason to believe that my--and *only* my--crucifixion
would forever end cancer, for instance, or even the common cold, what kind of
selfish jerk would I have to be not to volunteer? For that matter, many
people in the Bible, and certainly many in the modern world, have died in much
more hideous ways with no resultant redemption. Further, if "temporal"
matters are beneath God or Christ, why should the crucifixion have any value
at all?
I'm not trying to be blasphemous here (I'll keep those opinions in off-
topic.clone-brands), but I've really wrestled with this dilemma for some
time. Am I missing something obvious?
> > If anything, I suppose I'm more like a buddhist - I believe there may
> > be a higher power (though he has never conclusively shown herself,
> > nobody has, or can, disprove him). I don't think he is necessarily
> > omnipotent, or perfect. I suppose that makes my stance "God is people
> > too!".
>
> Anthropomorphisizing God. Bad start.
One might argue that "Let us create man in our image" is the ultimate in
retroactive anthropomorphizing. Especially if one doesn't accept the Bible as
the undiluted Word.
> > I personally would rather derive my purpose from helping my fellow man
> > than from a higher being who may or may not exist and who has never
> > given a clear sign either way how he would want me to live out my
> > life.
>
> lol Look at Jesus' teaching. The second commandment He gave us was to Love
> our neighbor as ourselves. How is what you said different than what Jesus
> taught? The difference is that you have no *reason* behind your desire to
> help your fellow man.
Kant (I think--I'll have to double-check) formulated a logical, consistent
framework for the moral imperative, under which, among other things, the
"good" treatment of other people is logically better than "bad" treatment.
And I don't think the framework necessitated any higher being to get it
rolling.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
