Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site trwrba.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrba!jnelson
From: jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: A pridefull man's reaction to a Holy God.
Message-ID: <1142@trwrba.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 17:47:12 EST
Article-I.D.: trwrba.1142
Posted: Tue Nov 27 17:47:12 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 11:49:00 EST
References: <516@watdcsu.UUCP>, <246@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 76


		John Nelson:
		Which is why Christ's death on the cross seems so
		totally unwarrented...

	Larry Bickford:
	Where there is sin, there must be payment for sin.

Ah, but that's the sort of rhetoric I was refering to earlier.  WHY
must there be payment for sin?  This sounds like a form of revenge to
me.  "Paying" for sins doesn't sound terribly constructive....
especially coming from an infinite God whose wisdom supposedly
transcends all.  Similarly the existance of an ever-burning hellfire
seems to accomplish less than an all-wise deity should be capable of.

The concept of payment for sins is NOT a new one.  Many ancient
cultures had it.  This leads me to conclude that the concept of
"payment" for sins might very well have originated in man and not God.
Interestingly enough a number of non-theistic religions have not
developed a concept of "payment for sins."

Without such a belief, much of the justification for God's existance
would be undermined.  That's why the argument for "payment of sins"
often is of the form.... "But there JUST HAS to be payment."

	Finite man can never fully pay for his crimes against God;

Same.

	therefore justice demands an infinite time in the lake of
	fire.

I love the use of the word "therefore" here.  This isn't fooling
anyone.  The idea that there must be payment for sins is at best a
fuzzy sort of parity.  I havn't seen a decent rationalization for it
yet.... expecially in the arguments of Mr. Bickford, but I'm hoping.

	Since that's not exactly something to look forward to, what
	alternatives are there?

Fear is not a valid justification for belief in God.  Anymore than
it justifies a belief in Satan as a viable alternative to God.

	The "killing of an innocent" is far from "senseless." Only
	someone who had no sins of his own to pay for could pay for my
	sins...

Of course that assumes that...

	1)	Payment of some sort IS required.
	2)	Death is a suitable payment.
	3)	The death of an innocent is better than the death of
		he who is truly guilty.

These are all necessary to the Christian theology and yet I don't think
there is adequate justification for them.  As I had said to Ken Nichols
before... this harkens back to the Old Testiment thinking that said one
could remove sin from one's self by shedding the blood of another.

	Further, One Who is Himself infinite *could* make full payment,
	not only for my sins, but also for those of countless others.
	Thus, the Deity of Christ is an essential part of Christianity.
	The Letter to the Hebrews contains a good study of this.

Your rationalizations have yet to hit the mark.  If you can't
rationalize, then I don't try.  Theistic grounds seem to be more your
forte'.


				"We don' need no stinkin GREEN books"
				- John
-- 
What... is your name?				John T. Nelson
What... is your net address?			sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!jnelson
What... is your favorite colour?		Orange
Right... of you go then!