Is the Good News As Presented in the Bible Snakeoil Salesmanship?

[thomas t]

And what about the ones who never met Him, nor heard anything about the Bible?
Are they debts not payed? If no, what does that mean for them? Will they pay for that, for reason outside their control? What have they done to deserve this?

If yes, why does it require acceptance of the payment from us, if payment can be done without explicit acceptance? What have we done to deserve this?

[...]

- viole

great questions, let me get back to you now.

I think one and every human deep down in their hearts know that they did something wrong harming others at least once in their lives.
Bible says nature points to God (Romans 1:20).
If I assume this to be true, every person in the world could have prayed to this creator at least once in their lives to apologize. "Dear creator whatever name you may have, please take my apologies..."
This is at least my personal stance.
If they sin again after the apology, they would need to apologize again and so on.
I don't find this in the Bible, but it may be like this.

Furthermore, there are many accounts of people who claim to have dreamt of Jesus - without ever having heard of that one before. See for instance After Visions of Jesus, Imam Renounces Islam | Open Doors USA

So it may be possible that these sorts of contacts happen more often I think.

And, more importantly, why does He insist on that? After all, what He payed for us got back in His bank a few days later. So, He did not sacrifice all that much to justify such insistence that we accept Him as Lord, Saviour, or whatever...or else...

Ciao

ah no, his work was done once dead. He has received the torture and the murdering. So his services finished when he was dead.
In my opinion, it is for these services that Jesus got payed by God according to the principle that workmen merit their pay which is also in the Bible.

 

[thomas t]

Sounds heroic for Jesus, but paints as a monster whichever deity set up a system that would require "tortuous death" as the price for sin.

one tortuous death for the sin of all the world. Well, the sins of those that repent proclaiming Jesus as Lord.
BTW the deaths of subsequent Jesus followers weren't any better, I'm afraid.
That's just how the people of back then chose to murder their victims.
That's actually what their sin looked like.
God reacted to just that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

one tortuous death for the sin of all the world. Well, the sins of those that repent proclaiming Jesus as Lord.

A system that requires the murder of the only truly innocent person who ever existed to work properly seems... imperfect, to put it mildly.

BTW the deaths of subsequent Jesus followers weren't any better, I'm afraid.
That's just how the people of back then chose to murder their victims.
That's actually what their sin looked like.
God reacted to just that.

So God's chosen plan for salvation relied on sin?

 

[thomas t]

So God's chosen plan for salvation relied on sin?

salvation is needed because of sin.
Jesus just made that sin feature in his plan, that's all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

salvation is needed because of sin.
Jesus just made that sin feature in his plan, that's all.

I take that as a "yes": that God's plan for salvation relies on sin.

Say that Judas, Pilate, etc. decided to behave better and Jesus was never crucified. Would humanity have been doomed?

 

[thomas t]

I take that as a "yes": that God's plan for salvation relies on sin.

Say that Judas, Pilate, etc. decided to behave better and Jesus was never crucified. Would humanity have been doomed?

that's too hypothetical for me. Before and afterwards, they just killed the prophets, Bible says. See for instance Luke 11:48.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

that's too hypothetical for me. Before and afterwards, they just killed the prophets, Bible says. See for instance Luke 11:48.

All right - you don't want to give a specific answer. Regardless, hopefully you can recognize that there are only two possible answers:

• Humanity would have been saved without Jesus's crucifixion. IOW, Jesus's crucifixion was unnecessary.
• Humanity would not have been saved without Jesus's crucifixion. IOW, God relied on sin in his plan of salvation.

Do you agree? If not, could you tell us what other possibilities you see?

 

[thomas t]

All right - you don't want to give a specific answer. Regardless, hopefully you can recognize that there are only two possible answers:

• Humanity would have been saved without Jesus's crucifixion. IOW, Jesus's crucifixion was unnecessary.
• Humanity would not have been saved without Jesus's crucifixion. IOW, God relied on sin in his plan of salvation.

Do you agree? If not, could you tell us what other possibilities you see?

well it's #2 I suppose. That doesn't turn killing of innocents into something good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well it's #2 I suppose. That doesn't turn killing of innocents into something good.

No, it doesn't. But it reflects poorly on God. It implies that God sanctions evil.

 

[thomas t]

No, it doesn't. But it reflects poorly on God. It implies that God sanctions evil.

here I disagree.
It happens and God works with it.
A documentary about violence does not sanction violence either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

here I disagree.
It happens and God works with it.

Right: God works with - or some might say "does" - evil to accomplish his goals.

A documentary about violence does not sanction violence either.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[thomas t]

Right: God works with - or some might say "does" - evil to accomplish his goals.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

a documentary maker also works with the subject in question.
If it's violence, he works with it in his documentary, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

a documentary maker also works with the subject in question.
If it's violence, he works with it in his documentary, too.

I really don't see what you're trying to get at with this analogy.

If you're right, then God is the one actually employing the evil act; he's not just observing it like a documentary filmmaker would be.

In fact, when a documentary maker makes a documentary about evil or human suffering, it's often to try to stop it... because - as a limited human being - they can't stop it on their own.

Maybe try making your point without the analogy. So far, it just gets in the way for me.

 

[thomas t]

If you're right, then God is the one actually employing the evil act; he's not just observing it like a documentary filmmaker would be.

In fact, when a documentary maker makes a documentary about evil or human suffering, it's often to try to stop it... because - as a limited human being - they can't stop it on their own.

Maybe try making your point without the analogy. So far, it just gets in the way for me.

I'll explain the analogy.
Because it is 100% spot on. Of course Jesus intended to stop the whole killing industry, I think.
In Germany, there is a filmmaker called Wallraff.
He does nothing else than putting himself into harm's way or - as you would put it - employ the evil act.

For instance he films himself taking part in a city tour. As a black man. (He's white, but tin the videos he's black), and then all these worried persons come to him to insult him.
He films everything.
It's great. Very much in the way that Jesus-s death was great, too.

So, it's a perfect analogy here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll explain the analogy.
Because it is 100% spot on. Of course Jesus intended to stop the whole killing industry, I think.
In Germany, there is a filmmaker called Wallraff.
He does nothing else than putting himself into harm's way or - as you would put it - employ the evil act.

Not really the same as what God is doing, according to your description.

For instance he films himself taking part in a city tour. As a black man. (He's white, but tin the videos he's black), and then all these worried persons come to him to insult him.
He films everything.
It's great. Very much in the way that Jesus-s death was great, too.

So, it's a perfect analogy here.

It's not getting your point across, so it's failing to do the only thing that an analogy is supposed to do.

Can you please just tell me what your point is in plain language?

 

[thomas t]

I wanted to get this point out of the way:

Right: God works with - or some might say "does" - evil to accomplish his goals.

... by saying that documentary makers such as Walraff do the same exact thing.
You answered by saying that these film makers just document or observe.
I cited Walraff to show that this is not the case.
It's just that.
I hold that the analogy is 100% spot on.

I won't be starting pondering about a second way how to answer your point cited above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wanted to get this point out of the way:

... by saying that documentary makers such as Walraff do the same exact thing.
You answered by saying that these film makers just document or observe.
I cited Walraff to show that this is not the case.
It's just that.
I hold that the analogy is 100% spot on.

I won't be starting pondering about a second way how to answer your point cited above.

My impression coming into this discussion is that when you're confronted with a difficult question about some theological argument you're making, you become evasive instead of actually confronting the problems with your argument.

I think that's what you were doing when you made a show of being offended by @shunyadragon 's post earlier instead of responding to his point, and I think it's what you're doing now, going off about some irrelevant analogy instead of making a clear point.

If your goal is to convince me of something, you're doing a poor job of it.

 

[thomas t]

My impression coming into this discussion is that when you're confronted with a difficult question about some theological argument you're making, you become evasive instead of actually confronting the problems with your argument.

actually that's not the case.
I gave the analogy. If you don't understand it, that's how it is.

I never made a show of being offended. I discussed that point with @shunyadragon. Our discussion has ended, all that needed to be said was said.