Jesus as evidence God is crazy?

[michel]

Substitutionary atonement and the juridical view of the faith that it is based on is a comparitively recent and peculiarly western teaching within Christianity. It is not the be all and end all of the faith and nor is it the oldest understanding of Christ's Incarnation. I, and millions of other eastern Christians, am in no doubt that it is incorrect. If you want to understand the much older, eastern interpretation (and one which does not require belief in either a vindictive or a non-omnipotent God) then I'd suggest reading St. Athanasios' On the Incarnation, which can be found online.

James

James, I have been searching for the 'correct' link, but can't find it. Could you PM me the link, please ?

 

[darkpenguin]

kind of begs the question - whos crazier us for believing in a god or a 'god' who does what he does!

 

[uumckk16]

i believe it is because if God is the creater he has to follow the rules of his creation and obviously one of them was mans ability to sin, but he didnt want to be seperated from them forever

I realize this is no longer your belief, but I have some questions about it.

If he didn't want to be separated from them forever, why would he make them sinful in the first place (or rather, put them into a situation where he knew they would fall)? And why is it okay with him to be separated from some forever?

so he scarificed Jesus for Satan to torture so that some people could be saved. At least that was my belief when I was a Christian.

The only way this would make sense to me at all would be if Jesus was put into Hell for eternity. To me that would truly be a sacrifice.

 

[Nullifidian]

Justice had to be satisfied...I'll get into this more later.

Why? What's so great about justice that God would deem it to be imperative, that the universe couldn't exist without it? Or was it God who chose the rule that "justice had to be satisfied"?

And why couldn't he simply forgive our sins whether we believe in him or not? He wiped Mary's original sin off the slate, in the Immaculate Conception, so why could he not do that for everyone, since it's his choice to make? But then we wouldn't be risking eternal torment in Hell, so we wouldn't need a Saviour to save us from it.

 

[Neale]

The only way this would make sense to me at all would be if Jesus was put into Hell for eternity. To me that would truly be a sacrifice.

Follow the bouncing ball of logic:

-God is omnipotent, as well as omnipresent.
-Jesus is God.
-"Hell" is eternal seperation from God, eternal damnation (sans God) and/or the eternal lacking of God.
-Jesus cannot exist in "hell."

Q.E.D.

 

[uumckk16]

Follow the bouncing ball of logic:

-God is omnipotent, as well as omnipresent.
-Jesus is God.
-"Hell" is eternal seperation from God, eternal damnation (sans God) and/or the eternal lacking of God.
-Jesus cannot exist in "hell."

Q.E.D.

True. But if he's omnipotent, I should think he could My point was that I don't see how going to Hell for a few days before returning to Heaven is a sacrifice. In the end, Jesus and God prevail.

 

[Nullifidian]

Follow the bouncing ball of logic:

-God is omnipotent, as well as omnipresent.
-Jesus is God.
-"Hell" is eternal seperation from God, eternal damnation (sans God) and/or the eternal lacking of God.
-Jesus cannot exist in "hell."

Q.E.D.

But what about this?

Psalm 139:7-8
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."
(KJV)

This shows that God can be in hell, and so presumably, so can Jesus. And how is it possible to be separated from an omnipresent being? If God is literally everywhere, then there's no place that is separate from Him for anyone to be.

 

[James the Persian]

Why? What's so great about justice that God would deem it to be imperative, that the universe couldn't exist without it? Or was it God who chose the rule that "justice had to be satisfied"?

That's the major problem with the western view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - you're left with two choices, either God is evil because He chooses to not forgive without his blood payment or He simply isn't omnipotent, because He's bound by the necessity to satisfy justice. Thankfully, this sort of an idea is anathema in the east where we continue to hold to the Incarnational soteriology that long pre-dates this warped, scholastic and peculiarly Latin view.

And why couldn't he simply forgive our sins whether we believe in him or not?
He wiped Mary's original sin off the slate, in the Immaculate Conception, so why could he not do that for everyone, since it's his choice to make?

You'll actually find that non only is this idea purely Roman Catholic, it's also very recent. The Immacualte Conception is by no means a foundational teaching of Christianity. In fact, we would deem it heretical.

But then we wouldn't be risking eternal torment in Hell, so we wouldn't need a Saviour to save us from it.

The salvation given mankind is not salvation from hell. In fact in our view hell isn't exactly a place at all. It's safe to say that from our point of view salvation would still be necessary even without any possibility of our suffering after death.

James

 

[Comprehend]

we continue to hold to the Incarnational soteriology...

James, could you explain what this is? I have never heard of it.

 

[James the Persian]

James, could you explain what this is? I have never heard of it.

I could, but I think it would be better to invite you to read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasios and then ask questions if you have any. It will be a major paradigm shift for you, however, as I know that LDS teaching seems to emphasise the very western idea of substitutionary atonement rather than the older view of the eastern Fathers. As Michel had difficulty finding the link last time I mentioned this, I've provided it here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Hope that helps,

James

 

[Wandered Off]

Here is another link that addresses an Eastern take on how Western theology added "justice" as some kind of higher authority God answers to...

It's a very long read, but it's well worth the time, IMO.

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

 

[James the Persian]

Here is another link that addresses an Eastern take on how Western theology added "justice" as some kind of higher authority God answers to...

It's a very long read, but it's well worth the time, IMO.

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htmhttp://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Just to caution people, this is a polemical piece by a rather extreme Orthodox writer. The theology is not wrong (in fact I'd say that the vast majority of Orthodox would have no argument with any of it) but he is rather more anti-Western than is necessary and he excludes certain strands of Orthodox theology which, whilst much more minor for us, are closer to the western view. In other words, take his views for what they are, rather out on the fringe of Orthodoxy. I, personally, found this very helpful during my catechumenate but I'm careful who I would recomend it to.

James

 

[Wandered Off]

Thank you for the caveat. Being woefully uninformed on Eastern Orthodoxy, I didn't pick up on that. I enjoyed seeing a different perspective, but your caution is well taken.