I can die for my own sins

[lemur]

I'm not sure I saw much about divine revelation when reading the New Testament. Where do you draw this idea from?

Isn't that all Holy Spirit is? i.e. direct access to divine revelation instead of having to seek intermediaries with God?

 

How is this different than what I said? He took all sins and forgave them.

True. Like I said, though, it seems like it means something slightly different when you don't take it in the context that his persecution and killing were themselves the sins that he died for, which everyone else was responsible for. E.g. there have been people for centuries who have been saying that Pilate and the soldiers were just doing what 'the Jews' called for - and therefore blamed 'the Jews' for Christ's death when everyone was complicit in some way or other in that they all assented to worldly authority (of church and state). I think it's good that Christians have been making amends for centuries of anti-Semitic doctrine blaming 'the Jews' but technically in Christianity NO ONE can be exonerated for contributing to Jesus' killing because if everyone would have heeded his word (and the commandment not to kill), he wouldn't have been killed at all. Maybe a moot point considering the overall path the story, and thus the theology, takes that basically necessitate the crucifixion and thus resurrection, salvation, and redemption. But the big question is where does the easter bunny fit into it all, right?

Edited April 26, 2011 by lemur

[keelanz]

How so?

 

The logic is there in my text already. If god is EVERYTHING it cant be defined as just being "good" it would also encompass what is "bad" which according to abrahamic religion is the sins. So god is either EVERYTHING or he is everything that is GOOD, being both is a paradox.

[A Tripolation]

The logic is there in my text already. If god is EVERYTHING it cant be defined as just being "good" it would also encompass what is "bad" which according to abrahamic religion is the sins. So god is either EVERYTHING or he is everything that is GOOD, being both is a paradox.

 

I don't see how being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnibenevolent means that you have to be evil.

[Marat]

The concept of God is usually defined as an entity which is omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely good. But omniscience does not imply that God has to be everything he knows, since knowledge can and usually does extend to things which are not in or of the knower. Knowledge usually implies a gap between the knower and the known. Omnipotence also does not imply, as you seem to assume, that God himself 'is' everything, since having the power to do X does not necessarily mean being X. God might have powers which he reserves, and his refusal always to exercise them could leave many things outside his individual nature and control, keeping them ontologically distinct from him. Infinite goodness doesn't mean being everything either, since people who are more good than other people are not any more ontologically extensive than evil people. So by all these three defining predicates of God, there seems to be no reason why he also has to be everything, so that he cannot be just the good and not the bad.

 

Now we can blame him for withholding his omnipotent power to correct evil, which he should logically be willing to exercise for the good if he is both omnipotent and infinitely good, but that is separate from the issue of God's being having to include everything within itself.

[keelanz]

The concept of God is usually defined as an entity which is omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely good. But omniscience does not imply that God has to be everything he knows, since knowledge can and usually does extend to things which are not in or of the knower. Knowledge usually implies a gap between the knower and the known. Omnipotence also does not imply, as you seem to assume, that God himself 'is' everything, since having the power to do X does not necessarily mean being X. God might have powers which he reserves, and his refusal always to exercise them could leave many things outside his individual nature and control, keeping them ontologically distinct from him. Infinite goodness doesn't mean being everything either, since people who are more good than other people are not any more ontologically extensive than evil people. So by all these three defining predicates of God, there seems to be no reason why he also has to be everything, so that he cannot be just the good and not the bad.

 

Now we can blame him for withholding his omnipotent power to correct evil, which he should logically be willing to exercise for the good if he is both omnipotent and infinitely good, but that is separate from the issue of God's being having to include everything within itself.

 

you say "his" and "him" far to much for me to take you seriously, the creator is what it created...its that simple

 

I don't see how being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnibenevolent means that you have to be evil.

 

it doesnt, it implies that you cant just be good, your the bad and the good, the down and the up etc

Edited April 26, 2011 by keelanz

[lemur]

The logic is there in my text already. If god is EVERYTHING it cant be defined as just being "good" it would also encompass what is "bad" which according to abrahamic religion is the sins. So god is either EVERYTHING or he is everything that is GOOD, being both is a paradox.

I think the issue is that by creating a creation that "goes forth and multiplies" infinitely, God created both goodness and evil as a byproduct. The story of the fallen angel is a good illustration because the angel gets perverted by his own narcissism as God's great angel. So when (parts of) the creation becomes oppositional towards other parts, that could be seen as parts of God going bad. God did, however, supposedly create the distinction between good and evil and replicate this ability to distinguish between them in humans, so you could say that God is everything AND he is the means of distinguishing good from evil - and maybe the wisdom to know how to deal with evil in a way that resists generating more evil or destroying/perverting goodness in the process.

[john5746]

I'm not sure one can rationalize this to become completely consistent, though.

 

Agreed. I can't make any sense out of it.

[lemur]

In response to the thread title, it is actually a really interesting idea that people could be so indebted that death itself wouldn't be sufficient repayment. I.e. you can't "die for your own sins" because that wouldn't be sufficient payment for the debt you owe. Then what?

 

Btw, this is not a deviation from the thread topic because I think it is the whole reason people are supposed to imitate Christ, "become part of the body," etc. I.e. because ONLY redemption is sufficient repayment for the debt of sin - not sure how that fits with forgiveness though. A contradiction maybe?

Edited April 26, 2011 by lemur

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Isn't that all Holy Spirit is? i.e. direct access to divine revelation instead of having to seek intermediaries with God?

But your claim was that failing to consult the Holy Spirit for divine revelation is a sin. Is this a Biblically supported claim?

 

you say "his" and "him" far to much for me to take you seriously, the creator is what it created...its that simple

That doesn't make sense. How can a creator create what is created if the creator is what is created? That would imply the created object created itself, because it is its own creator. Perhaps you can explain further.

[keelanz]

I think the issue is that by creating a creation that "goes forth and multiplies" infinitely, God created both goodness and evil as a byproduct. The story of the fallen angel is a good illustration because the angel gets perverted by his own narcissism as God's great angel. So when (parts of) the creation becomes oppositional towards other parts, that could be seen as parts of God going bad. God did, however, supposedly create the distinction between good and evil and replicate this ability to distinguish between them in humans, so you could say that God is everything AND he is the means of distinguishing good from evil - and maybe the wisdom to know how to deal with evil in a way that resists generating more evil or destroying/perverting goodness in the process.

 

I agree totally from my own point of view however if you philosophise a second you realise its only our intersubjective which is the wisdom to distinguish. #

 

also the means by which to distinguish is different from actually being good, so god is still as much bad as good if with the knowledge of distinguishing we dont act upon it.

[lemur]

But your claim was that failing to consult the Holy Spirit for divine revelation is a sin. Is this a Biblically supported claim?

I think what it specifically says is that blasphemy of Holy Spirit is a sin. Generally, I think it can be simplified to the idea that people can know for themselves when something is truly good or not, or they can at least make a true good faith attempt to do the right thing. So, for example, when Pilate admits that he sees no fault in Jesus but then he still decides to crucify him to satisfy public opinion, that would be a good example of going against Holy Spirit. The other would be when the people call for Pilate to kill Jesus because they say that their laws don't allow them to do it themselves. If you truly believed in the commandment not to kill, you wouldn't want someone else to do it for you. It has to do with doing things in good faith or bad faith, imo.

 

I agree totally from my own point of view however if you philosophise a second you realise its only our intersubjective which is the wisdom to distinguish. #

Whatever you call it, according to religious mythology it is all part of the creation. Humans and their knowledge and ideas, reasoning, etc. are all part of "going forth and multiplying" that began with God supposedly replicating himself and his creative potential by creating humans "in his image."

 

also the means by which to distinguish is different from actually being good, so god is still as much bad as good if with the knowledge of distinguishing we dont act upon it.

I think that's why the bible eventually talks about armageddon as an eternal war between good and evil. Once God created evil, he won't destroy it because that would also be evil and so evil has its place in the creation next to good. It seems as though what God and the prophets usually do is to try to show people the light of what is evil and good so they can act on it themselves. Then they go forth and multiply that for others. Ultimately, everyone is free to make their own choices between good and evil but those that see the light try to help others see it so they can make better choices. It's like if you know that fire can hurt you, you would tell someone to be careful around fire but you wouldn't go around stopping everyone from getting near fire for any reason.

 

 

[keelanz]

Whatever you call it, according to religious mythology it is all part of the creation. Humans and their knowledge and ideas, reasoning, etc. are all part of "going forth and multiplying" that began with God supposedly replicating himself and his creative potential by creating humans "in his image."

 

 

I think that's why the bible eventually talks about armageddon as an eternal war between good and evil. Once God created evil, he won't destroy it because that would also be evil and so evil has its place in the creation next to good. It seems as though what God and the prophets usually do is to try to show people the light of what is evil and good so they can act on it themselves. Then they go forth and multiply that for others. Ultimately, everyone is free to make their own choices between good and evil but those that see the light try to help others see it so they can make better choices. It's like if you know that fire can hurt you, you would tell someone to be careful around fire but you wouldn't go around stopping everyone from getting near fire for any reason.

 

my first line shows that what we all agree or believe is still only subjective not objective

 

 

on the second paragraph again i agree for the most part however killing evil isnt the evil but what it does do is destroys any concept of good, it would definitely destroy a few levels of consciousness in relation to weighing situations and such because for example if only good things existed it wouldnt really matter what you decided to do so thinking really wouldnt be needed.

 

evil doesnt sit next to good in creation it sits because of good as creation. (so essentially they are one another and therefor we only have different perceptions of the same thing)

 

 

i like your analogy about the fire i think it explains what you wanted to express very well, i think its probably a very accurate description of what JESUS himself may have been about.

Edited April 27, 2011 by keelanz

[Mr Skeptic]

But then why were material sacrifices sufficient in the past?

In the old days, sacrificing your best bull, sacrificing a good amount of sheep, or the most bountiful of your crops means that you had faith that God would take care of you, even if you let go of material possession. That's why it was acceptable, and practiced, then.

 

If so, then doesn't that make Jesus a more or less worthless sacrifice? If it is about material loss, Jesus has no material value to anyone. If it is about faith in God, I don't see how sacrificing Jesus increases nor shows our faith.

 

Perhaps we can ask a different question.

 

Is there any conceivable thing you can give God to repay Him for your disobedience? Is there some object or material you can give God that will make up for your sins?

 

Nope, but by the same token one might say that there is nothing you could do to actually sin against God either (ie, you can't harm Him). And moreover, why should God be upset that we use our free will that He gave us, to freely choose things as opposed to doing everything exactly as He would have wanted like good little robots?

 

In response to the thread title, it is actually a really interesting idea that people could be so indebted that death itself wouldn't be sufficient repayment. I.e. you can't "die for your own sins" because that wouldn't be sufficient payment for the debt you owe. Then what?

 

If the penalty for sin is just death, then Jesus paid that (yet we still die anyways). If the punishment for sin is eternity in Hell, Jesus spending three days dead doesn't cover that. What's the cumulative penalty for the entire sins of everyone in the world?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nope, but by the same token one might say that there is nothing you could do to actually sin against God either (ie, you can't harm Him). And moreover, why should God be upset that we use our free will that He gave us, to freely choose things as opposed to doing everything exactly as He would have wanted like good little robots?

Because the one thing God requires is obedience and faith, in the sense that Abraham had faith in God when he was willing to do anything God asked even if it sounded ludicrous. ("Wait, you want me to leave my house and move to Israel, because I'm going to have a bunch of kids there? I'm 90 years old!") Disobedience is the only sin there is.

 

As for the question of why, God answers that quite well in Job. Primarily by saying you're a piddly human and you shouldn't be asking.

[A Tripolation]

If so, then doesn't that make Jesus a more or less worthless sacrifice? If it is about material loss, Jesus has no material value to anyone. If it is about faith in God, I don't see how sacrificing Jesus increases nor shows our faith.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. How are the two sacrifices comparable?

 

As for the question of why, God answers that quite well in Job. Primarily by saying you're a piddly human and you shouldn't be asking.

 

Pretty much. This is off-topic, but I heard that there is this fascinating school of belief amongst some scholars that Job was written even before Genesis. And in my opinion, it does seem like a dated book. Just the way that Satan and God are still chummy.

[Marat]

This discussion reminds me of a point made in Peter Singer's interesting and brief text on Hegel. He says that humanity abstracts out all its good qualities and projects them into an imaginary being which contains all of these good features on a reified platform, which makes all these properties features of an infinitely good God-entity. Since humanity is now left behind with all of its good features missing, the constructed entity which contains all of human goodness, God, can now criticize humanity for lacking goodness, and humanity can feel guilty for no longer being good. This abstraction, projection, reification, and criticism process then creates a need for some reconciliation between a defective humanity and the infinite goodness of all the good abstracted out of it and made into a God-thing distinct from it, and this reconciliation is achieved through the mythology of the sacrificial lamb. Yawn!

 

This is what Wittgenstein used to call 'an unnecessary shuffle.'

[losfomot]

Because the one thing God requires is obedience and faith,

 

Then why not create us that way... I do not understand the point of giving us free will just to see if we give up that free will and do exactly what he wants anyway. It seems we are not given free will outright, we are instead given a choice... obey God or exercise your free will and burn in hell.

 

Because the one thing God requires is obedience and faith, in the sense that Abraham had faith in God when he was willing to do anything God asked even if it sounded ludicrous. ("Wait, you want me to leave my house and move to Israel, because I'm going to have a bunch of kids there? I'm 90 years old!") Disobedience is the only sin there is.

 

What kind of sick game is that to be playing. God says 'thou shalt not kill' and then tells Abraham to kill his own son. If that was truly a test, I'd say Abraham failed. How did he know he was not being tricked by lucifer into breaking one of God's commandments? And if God was all-knowing, why does he need to test people? He would know what was in Abraham's heart without having to put him through all that just to say at the last moment 'just kidding, you don't have to kill your son, I was just testing you' It just doesn't make any sense.

 

As for the question of why, God answers that quite well in Job. Primarily by saying you're a piddly human and you shouldn't be asking.

 

And yet he loves us all for we are all his ignorant children.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then why not create us that way... I do not understand the point of giving us free will just to see if we give up that free will and do exactly what he wants anyway. It seems we are not given free will outright, we are instead given a choice... obey God or exercise your free will and burn in hell.

There's really not much about Hell in the Old Testament. There were Jewish groups that didn't believe in any afterlife at all up until the times of Jesus. It was merely a practical concern -- follow God's rules and he will protect the Israelites from marauding neighbor kingdoms. Break his rules and he sees no obligation to help you out. That's the concept of the Covenant.

 

What kind of sick game is that to be playing. God says 'thou shalt not kill' and then tells Abraham to kill his own son. If that was truly a test, I'd say Abraham failed. How did he know he was not being tricked by lucifer into breaking one of God's commandments? And if God was all-knowing, why does he need to test people? He would know what was in Abraham's heart without having to put him through all that just to say at the last moment 'just kidding, you don't have to kill your son, I was just testing you' It just doesn't make any sense.

Er, no, Abraham came before Moses; the Commandments didn't exist yet.

 

It makes significantly more sense when not taken as a literal account of historical events; it demonstrates the kind of absolute obedience to God that is demanded of His children.

[losfomot]

Er, no, Abraham came before Moses; the Commandments didn't exist yet.

 

My mistake... it has been a few years since I read the OT... but the question remains.

 

It makes significantly more sense when not taken as a literal account of historical events; it demonstrates the kind of absolute obedience to God that is demanded of His children.

 

I don't agree that it makes more sense when not taken literally. Actually, how can it not be taken literally? Do christians in general not take it literally? Do they not take the entire OT literally? But the NT is to be taken literally? or also not? Are all these stories just made up as metaphors?

 

I apologize that this is getting off topic.

[Realitycheck]

In the end, most everyone should be allowed mercy, because man cannot be expected to believe in or assign value to any and all of the mistruths in the Bible. This is why the modern Catholic church has mercy written all over it.

[zapatos]

Then why not create us that way... I do not understand the point of giving us free will just to see if we give up that free will and do exactly what he wants anyway. It seems we are not given free will outright, we are instead given a choice... obey God or exercise your free will and burn in hell.

It shouldn't be that alien of a concept. Most of us run our romantic relationships that way.

 

"You can go to the party without me, we both know that temptation will be there, and what I hope you will do is ignore that temptation and remain faithful to me. Or there will be hell to pay!"

 

Knowing someone chooses to be faithful means a lot.

[Marat]

The obsession with issues of obedience and faith is characteristic of the relationship between humans and their governments, which are naturally always concerned with the effectiveness of their authority. This is especially true of any attempt to govern people by a made-up mythology whose doctrine empowers a priesthood to live at the expense of the general population even without providing any material service, but instead just because they create an unreal need (assuaging the sins of disobedience to a made-up omnipotence) which only they can mediate (confession, special prayer, interventions, rituals, etc.). Cf. the slogan of advertising: 'Create a need and then fill it.'

 

People get so caught up in the standard god-myths they don't notice how arbitrary they are. Why would a real god care so much about faith, belief, and obedience, rather than just about goodness, kindness, and humanity? He has the former obsessions because they are the characteristic worries of an invented mythology which seeks to govern people, and can only succeed in this if it can secure belief and obedience.

 

A real god, on the contrary, would have no particular reason to care whether we obeyed him or not, believed in him or not, or would not even necessarily want to promulgate rules of behavior. He would be completely confident of his own reality, of course, so what difference would it make to him if finite minds were convinced of that or not? He would have infinite power, so what difference would it make to him if finite minds obeyed him or not? With his infinite power, why would making moral rules for puny beings and punishing disobedience of those rules be such a preoccupation for him?