Tell me if I'm misrepresenting Christianity first of all.
God creates man, reveals the moral law to him and demands that he obey. Man transgresses the moral law and has offended God and God demands compensation from man, but the compensation is too great for man to pay, so out of his mercy he sacrifices his son (who is actually himself) in order to pay Mans debts. And you have to accept Gods sacrifice in order to be forgiven for your offense to him.
Am I in the ballpark here? Anyways I'll go ahead and get to the meat of it now.
...
the sacrifice in Christianity is crazy. But it is far from being the only crazy thing in Christianity.
I wasn't implying that wasn't the only screw loose JC has working. The one I pointed out is a particularly damning one and is even one that 'Christian relativists' (people who decide to pick and choose parts they like from the bible and/or view it simply as a metaphor) have to deal with, because it is pertaining to the element of the religion which is absolutely, without qualification fundamental to any weird manifestation of Christianity.
God, it would take so long to go through everything that is insane about Christianity.
Assuming said law requires justice for transgression of the law, one would have to provide said justice somehow, hence Jesus/a messiah.
Tempering not only includes crap happening to the person, but also the considerable curve of learning that happens to any imperfect being. In this learning experience it is expected that one will transgress universal law and something/someone must atone.
Most Christian doctine provides ample opportunity for men to avoid a hell or whatever eternal punishment is offered withing their system.
What are you complaining about? Even if God and the Son were the same entity and he paid for the transgessions himself, what does it matter? Law has still been fulfilled.
This complain like most I read about religion is based from a static historical ideological viewpoint.
If it is the case that God is forgiving us, why does he have to exact justice on himself? And why is this justice getting himself crucified and dying a horrible death? Do all men deserve a horrible death and eternity in hell for sinning against God? If you'll forgive a tangent, that seems like a really screwed up conception of justice to me if the punishment for stealing a bag of doritos from a 7-11 is eternal torture.
Anyways, suppose in the scenario the compensation for your offense is you get some of your fingers broken. 'You offended me, now you have to pay me compensation, this offense is so great it DEMANDS that I break a few of your fingers.' Can't imagine what one'd have to do to deserve that, probably break somebody's fingers? Anyways that's the math of it. If you can deserve eternal torture for something then you can probably imagine a scenario where you deserve to get your fingers broken. But imagine you're in the offenders place and you're about to get your fingers broken for your offense and then all of the sudden the guy says to you 'Don't worry though, I'm such a merciful and just person, that I'll pay the debt for ya'. Then he proceeds to break several of his own fingers. 'Do you accept my forgiveness?' He asks you, he doesn't even ask you if you're going to accept the forgiveness before he goes and breaks his fingers he just goes and does it. Maybe so he can guilt you into accepting it or something? Anyways he does it, then if you say 'yes' then you're off the hook, free to go. But if you say 'that doesn't settle anything that's crazy' or just plain 'no', he breaks your fingers.
Tell me if I'm misrepresenting Christianity first of all.
Man I wish there were some Christians in this thread so they could cop out somehow.
I wasn't implying that wasn't the only screw loose JC has working. The one I pointed out is a particularly damning one and is even one that 'Christian relativists' (people who decide to pick and choose parts they like from the bible and/or view it simply as a metaphor) have to deal with, because it is pertaining to the element of the religion which is absolutely, without qualification fundamental to any weird manifestation of Christianity.
When did I appeal to anything of the sort? I tried the best I could to argue from strictly objective, rational grounds.
Well according to the word...
Your debt has been paid so fear not. Eventually all will figure this out. Your analogy shows exactly why. The thing is until we figure it out we are missing out on the many blessings God desires to bestow in the here and now. We're missing out on a relationship with a God who really does love us that much.
Tell me if I'm misrepresenting Christianity first of all.
Would not an argument from strictly objective grounds witheld the condescention and derision? when it comes to issues of beilief i really do feel that it is almost impossible to hide the emotion from the argument on either side.
@Amperage
When some holy books conception of moral laws runs contrary to ratoinally constructed conceptions of moral duty, I'd go with the later, should I be going with the former? And why?
You read my analogy, and the first thing that occurred to you...is that...this is the kind of thing people who love each other do?
How does the paying of a debt run contrary to "rationally constructed conceptions of moral duty"
Not to mention how does one decide what is a rationally constructed moral duty?
yes, they sacrifice themselves for others even when the others don't deserve it.
My question to you is, where is the static historical ideological viewpoint I am dogmatically defending?
We're not just talking about paying debts here. We're talking about paying them in blood.
See Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Tell me if I'm misrepresenting Christianity first of all.
God creates man, reveals the moral law to him and demands that he obey. Man transgresses the moral law and has offended God and God demands compensation from man, but the compensation is too great for man to pay, so out of his mercy he sacrifices his son (who is actually himself) in order to pay Mans debts. And you have to accept Gods sacrifice in order to be forgiven for your offense to him.
If it is the case that God is forgiving us, why does he have to exact justice on himself? And why is this justice getting himself crucified and dying a horrible death? Do all men deserve a horrible death and eternity in hell for sinning against God? If you'll forgive a tangent, that seems like a really screwed up conception of justice to me if the punishment for stealing a bag of doritos from a 7-11 is eternal torture.
...
Why do you think crucifixion is cruel for God qua God. Do you think God is at all subject to our notion of pain and humiliation as we see it?
...
The rest of the post, based on 'rational' princples, would make sense if we were talking about fairness in modern western society, but what the OP is doing is essentially applying the rule to the explicit exception, and assuming that divinity is on the same plane as the mundane , at the very basic level, again another common miistake when criticizing abrahamic theology.
If God was not subject to pain and humiliation, then it was not the sacrifice it is supposed to be. You are essentially suggesting that the debt isn't paid after all, and that the fundamental story of Christianity is basically a lie.
In other words, what is "bad" to us is "good" to god, and what is "day" to us is "night" to god? That is a very serious abuse of language you have going on there. If something is beyond humans, then it is irrelevant to anything we say or any judgement we make. Our judgment is always from our perspective, and cannot be otherwise. If it is something that makes no sense to humans, it makes no sense to you. Do not pretend that it does make sense to some other being when you are merely a human and cannot know what makes sense to some unintelligible being.
If amist is in no position to judge god because amist is merely human, then you are also in no position to judge god because you are merely human. Thus, you have no justification for saying that god is good or any other such judgement.
Man I wish there were some Christians in this thread so they could cop out somehow.
What means cop out ? Do not know if I am christian. They use water nowadays.
Fair enough. I have never heard any decent response to the issue you raise, which, as you say, is very central to Christianity. Typically, what one hears is tripe like "God works in mysterious ways", which is a cop out [emphasis added] that can be thrown in at the end whenever a Christian has lost the argument.
-Verb phrase
4. cop out,
- to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out (often fol. by on or of): He never copped out on a friend in need. You agreed to go, and you can't cop out now.
- cop a plea.
No, I am not saying that what is bad for us is good for god. I will perhaps go as far as to say that the "good/bad" dichotomy which exists for us does not exist within god himself.
Again, I am not suggesting an inverse relationship, I am not saying that crucifixion was good for god or not. I am saying that God Himself is beyond our judgment. He is not subject to our understand, he is not subject to our comprehension. Nevertheless what we do understand, what has been presented to us as Law, is within its own sphere, meant to establish its own axioms and own frameworks, its own principle and its own code of conduct. The Law is meant to express the Will of God, but it does nto act as a substitute or an explanation for it.
Rules your parents make for you are just that, a code of conduct, perhaps they will give you reasons to pacify you; it is for your own good. It does not mean that the reasons you are given reflect or are even remotely related to the Lawgiver's rationale, if there is any.
The Law does not need to make sense, it is not the believer's responsibility to understand and reason for the law, but rather for him to comply with it -- if there are any rational reasons behind the Laws, those serve exclusively as an apologetic, and not something fundamental.
The difference between me and amist is that I am judging his perception of god, and I am saying that while he perhaps has a right not to accept the basic axioms of that religion, if he wishes to give it a critique qua a belief system from purely "Objective" and "Logical" perspectives then he must actually use the logical systems, the cultural axioms of the religion itself; he must immerse himself in it and only then can he say "We believe this, this is true, this is what is accepted, then why X and Y" etc.
What he cannot do is say "I don't agree with the principles of your religion, therefore your religion does not make sense", which is essentially what has been said.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace