Biggest Problem of Christianity (Vicarious Redemption)

[Buddha Dharma]

You do as alot of people do, .you bring one verse and go about trying to build a whole mountain off of it.

I don't see how saying that refutes me in any way.

If had you back up to Beginning of Isaiah Chapter 1, you would had found out that God was displeased with Israel. About their Sacrifices of goats and lambs.

Odd, since that implies exactly what I'm saying. That the god of the Jews does not necessarily want or need sacrifices to forgive sin.

No instead, pick out one verse and try to build a whole mountain off of it.

This is an almost laughable accusation.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't see how saying that refutes me in any way.



Odd, since that implies exactly what I'm saying. That the god of the Jews does not necessarily want or need sacrifices to forgive sin.



This is an almost laughable accusation.

Look, when you pick out just one Verse, and go about trying to build a mountain out of it, that will not work.
You have to go back and see what the subject is about first.

Your wrong again, God does want the sacrifices, if the sacrifices are done right.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Look, when you pick out just one Verse, and go about trying to build a mountain out of it, that will not work.

You mean kind of like Christians do all the time?

John 1:1, 1 John 5:7, etc

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Faithofchristian I may be wrong, but I seem to observe that you never really refute your opponents about the Bible, so much as accuse us of misrepresenting and/or not understanding it. That's avoidance.

You could try responding to me with scriptures you feel refute me, instead of saying I'm misrepresenting as a rebuttal.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You mean kind of like Christians do all the time?

John 1:1, 1 John 5:7, etc

That all depends on what Christians your referring to.
You know there are two groups of Christians.
So which group of Christians are you talking about.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

That all depends on what Christians your referring to.

This is going way off the rails. Are you going to respond to any of my arguments satisfactorily, or not?

You know there are two groups of Christians.

There's at least a 1000. Probably 10,000.

 

[Axe Elf]

It would really seem to be simply a higher ordering of our energy. We moved from a lower form, elements, to a more complex ordered form, man. Why would moving past this form into a more ordered energy state not be the next step. Nothing too metaphysical about this.

Um, yeah, actually, that's VERY metaphysical.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

But it's also kind of irrational. You're citing the assemblage of a bunch of elements together in the form of a human being as one step forward to a more complex form, so the next logical step to a more complex form would be the assemblage of a bunch of human beings together in the form of a... superbeing? The analogy doesn't really work as a vision for the afterlife.

 

[Faithofchristian]

@Faithofchristian I may be wrong, but I seem to observe that you never really refute your opponents about the Bible, so much as accuse us of misrepresenting and/or not understanding it. That's avoidance.

You could try responding to me with scriptures you feel refute me, instead of saying I'm misrepresenting as a rebuttal.

I did give you scripture, I said you need to back up to the beginning of Isaiah
Chapter 1 and see what the subject is all about. Then you will get an over view what Verse 18 is all about.

But instead you pick out one Verse, like alot of Christians do, and go about trying to build a whole mountain out of it.

But then, there are two groups of Christians. Which is which ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is going way off the rails. Are you going to respond to any of my arguments satisfactorily, or not?



There's at least a 1000. Probably 10,000.

You ask about Isaiah 1:18 and I gave you my answer, by saying you need to back up to the beginning of the Chapter and see what the subject is about.

 

[Sunstone]

Early Christians needed a way to be ale to justify their messiah's early death without abandoning their belief in him.

I think you are most likely right about that. To put what you said in a little context, suppose you and I were the disciples of an immensely charismatic person we thought was a savior who suddenly died poorly. I think you and I would probably be grasping for reasons too.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You ask about Isaiah 1:18 and I gave you my answer, by saying you need to back up to the beginning of the Chapter and see what the subject is about.

I've read the entire Bible a total of three times.

 

[Vickram M]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

That sounds like a police officer and government, if that is how Christian God is.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think you are most likely right about that. To put what you said in a little context, suppose you and I were the disciples of an immensely charismatic person we thought was a savior who suddenly died poorly. I think you and I would probably be grasping for reasons too.

You know, it is quite possible Jesus did not originally present himself as a messiah.

John Dominic Crossan tried to argue this by referencing the Gospel of Mark and pointing out that Jesus never affirms such in that work. He doesn't say yes or no when Peter implies. He says not to tell anyone, which may show he thought Peter was being hasty and was going to get him killed.

Crossan tried to build his case further by arguing that the Secret Gospel of Mark presents Jesus in glorified imagery and terms as an attempt by later Christians to make up for what they knew is Synoptic Mark's uncertainty.

Clement of Alexandria tells us that Secret Mark was seen as part of Mark by some, and rejected by others as such.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I've read the entire Bible a total of three times.

So your saying, you read the Bible a total of three times and you still do not understand, or how to put things together. Now that is amazing.

You may take a one verse in the Q'uran.
But the bible does not work that way.

But you can not just take one verse out of the Bible, The bible does not work that way. You have to start at the beginning of a Chapter and see what the subject is about first.

 

[Sunstone]

You know, it is quite possible Jesus did not originally present himself as a messiah. John Dominic Crossan argues this by referencing the Gospel of Mark and pointing out that Jesus never affirms it in that work. He doesn't say yes or no when Peter asks. He says not to tell anyone.

Crossan tries to build his case further by arguing that the Secret Gospel of Mark proves Christians tried to later make up for the author of the synoptic version's 'oversight'.

I think Grossan might be right. I heard such thoughts 40 years ago when I was studying comparative religion, and I have long thought they had merit.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think Grossan might be right. I heard such thoughts 40 years ago when I was studying comparative religion, and I have long thought they had merit.

Honestly, I'm not sure Jesus saw himself as anything more than a Jewish reformer, or founder of his own school. At most, he saw himself as a prophet following in the steps of the Hebrew Bible's latter prophets. The ones so big on social justice and charity.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

So your saying, you read the Bible a total of three times and you still do not understand, or how to put things together. Now that is amazing.

Ah, now you take shots at me. I think we've gone around enough for today.

I don't expect this to mean much to anyone, but I am quite learned on the subject of world religions- though philosophy was my major. Philosophers often do have world religions as a minor.

 

[Axe Elf]

Sin has become a collective force under the Christian worldview, where under the Jewish one it was merely missing the mark. Sin has it's own reality within Christianity.

This is a good point, but I think both viewpoints have some basis in truth. Mainstream Xianity DOES seem to identify sin with specific actions--lying, cheating, eating meat that has been offered to idols, etc.--while the Jewish interpretation is really closer to the meaning of the word ("missing the mark"). Essentially, sin IS "separation from God." It is not any particular act, but it is anything that separates us from God.

"Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power." --1 Corinthians 6:12 (Amplified Bible)

"All things are legitimate [permissible—and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]." --1 Corinthians 10:23 (Amplified Bible)

Now, sin may end up including some specific acts every time (like you can't really blaspheme WITHOUT separating yourself from God), but no act is defined as sin except to the extent that it separates you from God.

The bottom line is that we are all fundamentally separated from God by our human nature of selfishness, in contrast to God's nature of love. The opposite of love is not hate, it is selfishness, and when you act in selfishness, you separate yourself from God--and that's what we do as humans trying to survive, we act in self-interest instead of love all the time.

And so it is our collective separation from God--our existence in a state of sin--that made it necessary for Christ to bridge the gap back into the presence of God by taking on a human nature and trumping it (so to speak) by divine nature. (Again, don't ask me for the metaphysical mechanics of that.) In that sense, sin IS a collective force, as we are all doomed to share in the selfish human nature of Adam, as Adam was an allegory for mankind, fundamentally separated from God by a human nature opposed to divine nature, a selfish nature that wanted to be his own god.

That's an awfully compact Reader's Digest version, so if I need to flesh it out a bit, let me know--but I basically just wanted to confirm what you were saying about sin being misunderstood by Xians at times.

 

[Sunstone]

Honestly, I'm not sure Jesus saw himself as anything more than a Jewish reformer, or founder of his own school. At most, he saw himself as a prophet following in the steps of the Hebrew Bible's latter prophets. The ones so big on social justice and charity.

I'm very sympathetic to the notion Jesus saw himself and his role as that of a Jewish reformer. I'm not a scholar though.

Here's a thought for you: Compare and contrast the disciples of Jesus and the Buddha. Not Jesus and the Buddha, but their disciples.

Buddha teaches for nearly 50 years and his disciples love him but manage to memorize a whole lot of his ideas that later get written down.

Jesus teaches for about six months and his disciples love him but later pass on relatively few of his ideas and instead seem to focus much more on his life events.

Haven't you ever wished we know less about what Jesus did and the plot of his days and more about what he thought and said?

 

[Axe Elf]

Always interesting when non-Christians try to pick apart things they do not understand.

It IS interesting, but not in a bad way. I find it very encouraging. I'm always happy when someone seeks to understand, rather than to dismiss at face value--and I have to admit that Xianity can be pretty easy to dismiss at face value. So I commend people for giving Xians a chance to explain themselves--now if we can avoid giving them irrational answers that only make them even more confused and skeptical of the faith, that would be great.