by Terry 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Science has a way of explaining that need to someone who doesn't have God or spirituality in their lives.
Perhaps i didn't quite explain myself hamilcarr.
Rather than explaining that need, may be i should have said filled that void. In my opinion those who don't have a faith have a void that need to answer certain questions such as where we came from?, etc. Science can fill that void for those who don't believe in God or higher beings, etc
Paul
Ok, I was thinking about this topic the other night, and my problem with John 3:16 is the part about 'GAVE his only-begotten...'. Since Jesus was raised back to immortal life, in what sense was he 'given'? He was tortured and dead for parts of 3 days so that was an exchange, but ultimately he returned to whence he had come and continued with immortal life in the heavens, just as he was immortal pre the journey to earth. I know I digress from the original question, and sorry for that....but the more one thinks about these questions, the more questions there seems to be... he was apparently 'given' to pay a price, but the more I think about the whole scenario, the more it smacks of the old Jewish 'scapegoat' concept....not to hijack...just random musings....
Ok, I was thinking about this topic the other night, and my problem with John 3:16 is the part about 'GAVE his only-begotten...'. Since Jesus was raised back to immortal life, in what sense was he 'given'? He was tortured and dead for parts of 3 days so that was an exchange, but ultimately he returned to whence he had come and continued with immortal life in the heavens, just as he was immortal pre the journey to earth. I know I digress from the original question, and sorry for that....but the more one thinks about these questions, the more questions there seems to be... he was apparently 'given' to pay a price, but the more I think about the whole scenario, the more it smacks of the old Jewish 'scapegoat' concept....not to hijack...just random musings....
Indeed.
You raise LOGICAL flaws which stem from the ILLOGICAL premise.
Any conclusions reached from a flawed premise must be false conclusions.
God ___gave____but got back what He gave.
TO WHOM DID GOD _____GIVE___?
Or, put another way, FROM WHOM did God ransom his son?
Logically, it makes no sense to me...and yet I still want to believe...is that screwed or what? I love just about everything Jesus stands for, except the scripture where he asks those who don't have a sword to go and buy one...but again, I digress. Sorry!
Terry, I am still waiting to hear how you question the basis of God's love (in a STUNNINGLY simple manner) for humans without providing your own basis for loving your own son when asked.
I have raised the question in my most recent post above. I will repeat:
Do you love your son?
On WHAT BASIS do you love your son?
Also, your posting submits that reality should be our only basis for believing or disbelieving. You claim to be reality-based.
What is reality?
Your silence speaks.
Burn
Burn:
Forgive me...Terry didn't forbid his son to eat of the tree of life; he didn't condemn his own son as a sinner...I think you are deflecting the question. Why don't you answer it, if you have the answer?
You raise LOGICAL flaws which stem from the ILLOGICAL premise.
Any conclusions reached from a flawed premise must be false conclusions.
God ___gave____but got back what He gave.
TO WHOM DID GOD _____GIVE___?
Or, put another way, FROM WHOM did God ransom his son?
Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Is. 45:21: "Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me." But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.
Objection 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.
Objection 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance.
Objection 4: Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end---namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Lk. 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Lk. 24:44,46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead."
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God's part.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question [1], Article [2]), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Rm. 3:24,25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Eph. 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ."
Reply to Objection 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (FP, Question [64], Article [2]).
Do you love your son?
On WHAT BASIS do you love your son?
If one of my sons became a child molester I could no longer value my relationship with them. I would, if the situation arose, have to turn them in to authorities to stop them. I'd try and discover why--if there was a reason to be had--they had done such a horrible deed. If, one of my sons had murdered a child---I'd be heart broken and inconsolable. But, if they were sentenced to death for it---I would certainly understand the basis for that judgment. I could not witness the event under any circumstances. I really don't know how I would find the strength to continue my own life under such circumstances. Perhaps only by thinking of what I still had to offer those who remained.
In the case of God, however, it was HE who held humanity to a standard their human nature could not achieve. God condemned them for a failure. He warned them ahead of time. Fair enough if you have to call it fair. There was a justice to enforcing His standard.
Instead, without warning, God held every succeeding human born equally accountable. This makes no sense in a Moral Justice context.
God is Soverign? Yes, but, this is not a basis for Justice when there was no basis for condemning those who had NOT YET been born.
If you want to say Adam dented the mould and all humans were born with that dent---ha ha ha--a stupid analogy---I'll go along with it for the sake of argument. Yes, this is Justice. They are all dented and useless for a PERFECT standard. (But, keep in mind it is God who arbitraritly decided to hold this standard apart from the very nature of humanity to obtain to it.)
I'll grant you God has a basis in Justice for CONDEMNING humanity.
What I am asking you is: ON WHAT BASIS DOES GOD LOWER HIS STANDARD and start LOVING these undeserving souls enough to want to allow his PERFECT son, Jesus, to suffer and die although innocent?
You see? This gets you nowhere.
If you need a just basis for condemnation you need a just basis for eliminating your perfect standard and lifting the burden of human nature.
What is it?
Forgive me...Terry didn't forbid his son to eat of the tree of life; he didn't condemn his own son as a sinner...I think you are deflecting the question. Why don't you answer it, if you have the answer?
God gave his son free will. Man's choices had consequences. He did not give us this fate. It is our choice to sin. He gave us free will, and we chose to sin. God sent Christ in order to reconcile us to himself despite the choice of sin of our forefathers.
Payment is not required for the forgiveness of our sins because justice, along with everything else, is relative to God. There is nothing higher than God, so there is nothing that requires anything for God. God could have just said, "you are forgiven", but God chose not to.
One reason may be because it shows us how much God really loves us. If Christ did not sacrifice himself on the cross we would never have the comprehesion of how great his love is. Sacrifice is the greatest way to show ones love for another, so this is a great way to see it.
Another may be because by coming down to earth Christ set us a perfect example of all the virtues that we need in life.
Another may be that man is bound by this sacrifice to do the will of God. By sacrificing himself on the cross, Christ payed a great price to save us.
Another may be that it appeals to man's dignity. It was a man who chose evil and caused the rest of the world to lose its grace. Therefore it should be a man that would save the world from evil and death. It was a man who brought sin and death to the world, and it was a man that vanquished sin and death.
God does not have to do anything. He could have done it any way he wanted, but he chose to do things in this way for his own reasons. Possibly for the reasons I have given above. There may even be more reasons.
BTS
What is reality?
Modern physics strongly suggests a surprisingly uncomplicated, non-mysterious "ultimate reality" that may not be what we wish it to be, but is supported by all known data. Furthermore, this reality is very much like what was inferred by some remarkable thinkers in the ancient world: a universe composed of elementary objects that move around in an otherwise empty void. I call this atomic reality.
This proposal flies in the face of current fashion. That fashion repudiates all attempts, within science and without, to describe a universal, objective reality. I repudiate that fashion. Where the validity of certain ancient and modern concepts of truth and reality are denied, I affirm them. Where arguments are made that Western science tells us nothing of deep significance, I assert that it remains our foremost tool for the discovery of fundamental truth.
-Victor Stenger
