Religious Debate and Discussions
Christ My Savior
Posted by jeremyjanson • 8/25/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS]
Topics: bad temples, Christ, christian, Faith, grace, love, poetry, profiles, religion
There is a tendency in the church today to take communion, and thus partake in Christ's sacrifice, and emphasize all that Christ gave us without speaking a word about who He is. Perhaps, to understand who he is, first we should consider what is really His greatest sacrifice.
I'm a complete smartalec. That's why, when I heard people speak of Christ's death, I thought, what about all the other people who died for me? You know, the soldiers, the patriots, Marie Curie the physicist, the various saints who died, also, often crucified.
Then I came to this conclusion: the greatest sacrifice of his Christ was his life. He was way up there, entertained by angels, feasting sumptuously, honored, and continually in the prescence of his father, the most glorious, benevolent being who has ever or will ever be. I mean, folks, this is the kind of pampering you can't BUY on earth. He could've even had meaningful work there.
But instead, he came to Earth, to be tortured, disrespected, impoverished, put in fear, and in the end, abandoned by all those he loved and executed like a common crook (on a day and hour he knew from the day of his birth; such knowledge is a great burden in and of itself.) He was punished mercilessly for doing the right thing to spread God's love, wisdom, and vision of the future to all of the Earth and all the Earths people, and redeem us all, from death, from sin, and from despair and a poorly led life, to eternal life, glory, honor, a heart of gold, and a princehood of God. He willingly gave of himself, the deepest sacrifices, the greatest pains, the most horrendous labors he was entitled to avoid, and leaving behind all the glory and splendor that the Father had given him for so long, and became so forgiving that even Peter could be taken back after completely abandoning and denouncing him. He even gave us a Holy Spirit to make us capable where and when we were not and fix those aspects of our heart that had gone too far to be repaired by human ways and human attitude, and make us beautiful in the sight of Him, and in the sight of ourselves. His message, one of love, one of grace, and one of vision, and his wisdom perfect even according to many of those who don't believe in him.
See, people had forgotten that God even had love. They were stoning more then could be believed for even the most minor of offenses, then throwing their bodies in to garbage pits to be burned and their name discarded forever, they believed accursed from God. Grace didn't exist. The temple was a merciless burden that made money, made Pharisees rich, and took the last penny from the hungriest widow for its glorification. That bought and sold and found new ways to condemn the poor and weak.
Jesus could've stopped his fate. He could've rained fire from the skies at the people who were killing him. He could've abandoned the people who abandoned him. He could've disappeared, right to the lap of comfort, or made his skin impervious to the blow of a spear or a nail. He could've said, "Screw you Human Race!" and disappeared forever, leaving us all without his glory and message, and at the very least, Isreal to its, just, condemnation. In fact, he could condemn all of us, just as Babylonian mythology believed that all were condemned when they died, and for good reason. This was his right, and no one could hold it against him. But he loves every one of us so much that he would not even let Peter take a single ear off a single police officer, or remove from himself a single instant of his suffering, for the story had to be told, in its ugliest brutlest detail to show how much God cares for and desires each and every one of us. The world had to be shown, in the hardness of its' heart, who God really is and how much he loves his creation, YOU.
User Comments
-
No replies?
-
-
What sort of reply do you want?
Seems like a preaching post. Is there a discussion point in here? This is a pretty small group.. on one hand you have yourself, jeanine and others for whom you are simply preaching to the converted.
And the rest of us have made it pretty clear we don't buy this nonsense.-
It's actually more meant as poetry. I'm discussing a particular aspect of theology that some might find troubling. Honestly, I think such a discussion would be a lot more enlightening then some epistemological go around with unanswerable questions and unwritable proofs that would break logic itself.
-
You can't break logic, you will just fail to attain validity. -
His death was horrific, but the physical torture wasn't worse than what others have endured. The part that made it the ultimate sacrifice was that God poured His wrath on Jesus, and Jesus experienced the separation from God the Father, which is why He cried, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Experiencing the wrath for all of our sins was what He was so troubled about in the Garden of Gethsemene. And you are right, He could have chosen not to do it, but He did it because He loves us and because He submitted to the Father's will. -
@jflower36: You can't ignore the fact of what he gave up to do this to though, 30 years of perfectly good pampering. But this was more then submission - nothing God could've or would've done to Jesus was worse then what he put himself through. This was leadership, and love. But thanks for telling me about that, so beautiful, so loving, so perfect, it makes you feel even lucky to be alive in this world.
@vK: That's true in mathematics but when you're dealing with the fallacy of induction, which with God you always are, you will break science if you attempt to consider the question of God because the basic logical premise of your laboratory being the same as everywhere else and everything else in the basic laws, principles, and information is thoroughly vanquished by the mere possibility of divine will. -
Jeremy, I think we are on the same page...maybe just looking at it slightly different. Thanks for writing about your feelings about Christ's death. We definitely have so much to be thankful for.
I don't think Christ was pampered in his 30 years on earth. He said Himself:
Matthew 8:20
Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
Several times they tried to kill Him and He slipped through their fingers. I'm not saying He wasn't content....just not pampered. But of course He did live in Paradise in heaven before He was on earth...so in that sense He did have everything at His feet. And you are right that He personally chose to lay down His life.
John 10:11
" I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
But He did submit to the Father as well. When He was in the garden of Gethsemene he prayed and asked the Father if there was another way...but then said, "Not my will but yours be done".
Luke 22:40-42
On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." -
@jflower: Wow you really misread that. I'm saying he gave up 30 years of pampering IN HEAVEN.
-
Thanks for clarifying that.
-
What is this fallacy of induction you speak of? I can't find any instances of the "problem of induction" being a fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Even then, this is not a weakness of the inference, but of the premises. The weakness of science only occurs when science lacks data. However, any such weakness would be short-lived because scientists would immediately begin collecting data and forming theories based on the new circumstances. -
@vK: But the number of potential weakpoints is infinite.
-
So too are the number of possible values between 0 and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, but that doesn't mean 0 is a weak approximation.
-
Yeah but with your example your not looking at each individual point but only at an approximation of all of them. Whereas in your search for God or "elimination" of him, you would have to, because you have no way of knowing how fast or slow God operates in this regard, consider every single one of those points and as you considered them, more would be generated in your answers.
-
I don't search for your god, nor do I seek to eliminate him. His absence, his inability to manifest himself in a way that science would be unable to debunk now that we have the capability to do so (instead of revealing himself to our cattle-sacrificing primitive ancestors) says to me if he does exist, he clearly does not give enough of a shit about what I believe to show me the error of my ways, so I have no incentive to try to force myself to believe in an idea that does not make sense to me.
-
comment removed by administrator
-
Vk, you said that science has the ability to debunk a manifestation of God. My first response when reading that was to laugh a little because you have lifted science up to the level of God. As if God would allow Himself to be tested. There are many many things that science can't account for, much less a being such as God.
I do see where you are coming from and I can empathize with your viewpoint. But, if you don't seek God you surely won't find Him. Deuteronomy 4:29 says, " But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.
He is not obligated to show Himself to any of us. If He does, it is out of His great mercy that He does. He has given us enough evidence to damn us.
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -
@jflower: But your second quote is about people who suppress the truth. None of us find God except through the grace of God. Even having the will to seek him with all our heart is partially through his grace, as while we have free-will, without evidence of his majesty and presence in our lives (like being saved from an auto-wreck on I-90, me) none of us have reason to pursue him, period. At least none that could motivate you to the point required.
It said in Roman that God "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." (Romans 9:18) Now, that doesn't neccesarily mean they won't be saved, but exactly when is in God's hands. So VK, I ask you simply, have you seen evidence of God in your life? And if not, maybe it's just not your time yet. Maybe, for whatever reason, it is in God's plan that your heart be hard. Maybe he is concerned that your faith might interfere with some important work, perhaps one that is your own. In any case, we've been running around this circle forever. Cheers! -
[Vk, you said that science has the ability to debunk a manifestation of God. My first response when reading that was to laugh a little because you have lifted science up to the level of God.]
No, I didn't. I described, in a roundabout way, the phrase: "Only the supernatural can prove the supernatural." The second sentence is based on a misrepresentation of what I said.
To wit:
"His absence, his inability to manifest himself in a way that science would be unable to debunk now that we have the capability to do so (instead of revealing himself to our cattle-sacrificing primitive ancestors) says to me if he does exist, he clearly does not give enough of a shit about what I believe to show me the error of my ways, so I have no incentive to try to force myself to believe in an idea that does not make sense to me."
[He is not obligated to show Himself to any of us.]
Likewise, we are not obligated to believe in him wholeheartedly without proof that he isn't an idea spawned by the delusional.
[He has given us enough evidence to damn us.]
There is not a shred of conclusive evidence to be found in favor of any god's existence. If he thinks that's enough to justify eternal immolation, we clearly have different values.
[So VK, I ask you simply, have you seen evidence of God in your life?]
If I had evidence-- even anecdotal evidence-- it becomes less likely that I would be atheistic.
[And if not, maybe it's just not your time yet.]
Whatever works for you. Me? I avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias like the plague.
[Maybe, for whatever reason, it is in God's plan that your heart be hard. Maybe he is concerned that your faith might interfere with some important work, perhaps one that is your own.]
This is the kind of reasoning that makes people credit their god for the kindness of others, IMO. -
@Jeremy: yes that verse is about suppressing the truth---suppressing the truth of God's existence. As far as everything else you said I have to say I'm surprised! Here all this time I thought you were a free willer
I agree that God's grace must be involved because the will of man is stubborn and doesn't desire God. You stated it well.
@VK I'm want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that only the supernatural can prove the supernatural, and that science will never prove God? If that is what you are saying...then would it be true that you would have to have a supernatural experience in order to believe? -
A subjective experience deemed supernatural is not sufficient. A truly supernatural event that is well-studied and concluded to be the direct interference of a deity, however, would constitute evidence.
-
O.k......so hypothetically if you saw God, you would still not believe until scientists said He was real.
What kind of scientific test could verify God? -
@jflower: I am a free-willer, but without experiencing God our free-will has nothing to work off of, to gain traction of. Otherwise, it is still very much free-will. But "whom he wills he hardens" is about God deciding to not let someone find him. Again, free-will is there, but if information is not available there is NO CHOICE TO MAKE. It's not so much that man is stubborn in THIS CASE as that man's own eyes are blind, hence:
"Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." (Luke 18:17)
I'm guessing you had evidence in your life of God from early on. -
Yes, I did have evidence early on. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from on free will now. And we are on the same page. Yes, man is blind, but he is stubborn too.
Romans 2:5
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, -
[O.k......so hypothetically if you saw God, you would still not believe until scientists said He was real.]
No, and I would check myself into an asylum to boot. -
@jflower: Yes, but the question of which is the problem at the moment is in question. My guess is our friend is blind.
@vK: Nah. If you saw God you would know and you would be at peace, just like the 12.
-
-
Just stumbled on this discussion after a long leave. Absolutely marvelous! I really appreciate voodooKobra's clear and, I would say even precise thinking.
Jeremy and Jflower: your posts are in a way very poetic, but you are preaching to the choir. They would sound the same if you were discussing another book of myths. Could you explain why your beliefs are more true, than. say Scientology? It practically claims Ron Hubbard to be the prophet and all his teachings inspired from "above". What is really the difference? Can you enlighten me?-
I'm not sure we're really preaching to the choir, but we're certainly not preaching to you. In any case, the point really wasn't to persuade atheists but to speak about a particular point of theology, this is, after all, "Religious Debate and Discussions," not Mission de Santa BlogCatalogue. But as for your question:
Why do you think you will ever have certainty? We have no certainty with anything. I could point out to you how even your very eyes are untrustworthy, blind spots, optical illusions and mirages. These things are simple. I'm not saying this to cast doubt on your eyes per se, but to make a larger point about how people see, and help you put in to perspective this "absolute answer" you're asking for. It's an answer you get in nothing, not even the existence of your friends. This is setting up the picture.
I've looked at many religious books, including the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, Roman, Greek, and Norse Mythology, Salish Indian Mythology, and various texts and myths of Shento, and the Bible is by far and away the most complete, concise, inspired and coherent of all those I've looked at so far. Further, many people died selflessly having had their lives touched by Jesus Christ, and Christs death and ressurection has been confirmed from 1000's of different testimonies. The fact that atheists occasionally come up with easily dismissed nonsense, like Paul starting Christianity (newsflash: Paul was on the Meditarannean, and the first Christian nation was Ethiopia, 1000 miles away, a very long distance in those days, followed by Armenia, which he never went to but is a little closer [a few hundred miles]) does not help their Ethnos, but that's just to show where we stand.
These people gave up everything, their lives, their fortunes, their friends, for a reward YOU SAY they didn't get. What was their motive? Why would they lie? You can say force but if force is all they were worried about surely the Roman Authorities, who hated Christians, could've taken care of it for them! Those guys were pretty good at what they did, and most Christians eventually died by them. Even if it was force, someone had to be distributing the force, and this person to would've lived in poverty with the promise of eventual, physical, death.
See, when someone tells you they are the Son of God (something which does not happen in every religion, by the way, including in Hubbards) there are really only three possibilities: Liar, Lunatic, Son of God. We can now say, looking back at his life, that he was a good honorable man, just as science is a good empirical process that works most of the time. We can say, looking back at his life, that if it was lunacy, it strangely did not effect him in any other measurable way, making delusional schizophrenia and other such disorders extremely unlikely to the point where most doctors wouldn't even consider them. Does this prove it absolutely? No. Does science proves things absolutely? No. Do you know anything absolutely? Very little, and what you do know absolutely is exclusively about you and yourself.
Likewise, my prayers are almost always answered, and if I don't get what I wanted, I usually get what I need. Does this prove absolutely? No. But it does add, yet one more, incremental unlikelihood, pushing the score closer to my side.
So there. Your missionary pamphlet for the day. Want fries with that?
-
How do I know the bible is truth? Ephesians 1:13 says, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"
The Holy Spirit confirms the truth, convicts of sin, and leads us in the right direction.
John 16:13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
If you're looking for the wild card the Holy Spirit is it. -
@jflower36: Thanks for stopping by. Hopefully our friend can experience the Spirit soon!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
