Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!speaker From: speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: my belief (Justification) Message-ID: <259@gymble.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 01:46:29 EDT Article-I.D.: gymble.259 Posted: Fri Aug 16 01:46:29 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 20:49:05 EDT References: <8510@watarts.UUCP> <371@scgvaxd.UUCP> <232@gymble.UUCP> <1064@ihlpg.UUCP> Reply-To: speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 78 Keywords: Oh Lord... not again. In article <1064@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes: > > > > Yes... we will always miss the mark (although I hate using absolutes like > > this).... BUT your jump from "man missing the mark" to "that is why God > > came down in human flesh to die in our place" still fails to explain to > > the atheist EXACTLY why this act in any way cleanses us of our sins. It > > really isn't an explanation at all, and because no one has yet freed > > themselves of their own dogma it will continue to provide an unsatisfactory > > answer. > > Ok, I'm going to take my crack at explaining this one. It's a legal thing. > We have sinned. We have broken God's law. For this, the sentence is eternal > separation from God (which is the essence of hell, aside from everything > that's been preached about brimstone). Well for the sake of this discussion let's ignore the nature of hell. > God could not just pardon us without being less than God, > without being untrue to his own character. His justice demands that the price > be paid. Which is where we reenter the above quote. God (perfection) came > to die in human flesh (the price, death, was paid). Since Jesus was perfect, > he did not deserve to die. The sentence was not his; but ours. This sort of logic pays more attention to the letter of the law than to the spirit of it. In other words, it makes a God a buerocrat and a slave to his own edicts. How is it that a God who is so loving and sophisticated must also cling to the notion of "blood must be paid?" God did not send his son to earth simply to be killed and thus make sure that God's word and integrity remained intact. The crucifiction of Christ fulfilled only the letter of the law for symbolic purposes. It is not in itself the reason that the Christ came to earth or acended to heaven. > I've heard some say that 'God must be pretty rotten to let the good man suffer." > To which I can only reply, look at the legal situation here today. It is not > unheard of for a parent to 'take the rap' for his/her child. Which is all > that Jesus did. This "legal situation" sounds a little contrived and buerocratic to me. True... sometimes (much of the time actually) the adult takes the rap for the child. But does the adult go out and perform some ritual act like sacrificing his new set of golf clubs or his new Mercedes for the child? No of course not... the parent directly disciplines the kid and tries to reason with him. So how does crucifying God's own son take the rap for all of mankind's sins? It doesn't, because the redemption of mankind is not based upon a cause and effect world but upon a set of standards created by God. GOD performs the act of forgivness and NOT the sacrifice. The sacrifice itself really plays little part in it except as the ultimate act of petition. Petitions you will note are not the same as forgivness. How many Christians actually believe that there IS a mechanism that cleanses mankind other than God consciously saying "I will forgive you?" In other words, crucifying his own son was a symbolic act on the part of God to underscore the real plan. God doesn't NEED sacrifices ... he could do the whole job without a sacrifice. The sacrifice was a gaudy display for OUR benefit. A nice way to punctuate what God was offering. The symbolism was potent indeed, but has overshadowed what I think is the true and real purpose of the Christ and this was NOT to simply "die for our sins." Taken alone... the death on the cross and even the acension into heaven is a weak argument for forgivness of sins. What I find so stupyfyingly disturbing, however, is this almost neurotic emphasis on the idea that crucifying a man in some way magically purifies the whole human race. "Oh he was perfect and innocent therefore he was the perfect sacrifice and thus we are cleansed because infinite sin requires an infinitly perfect sacrifice et al ad nauseum." No one seems to have the courage to look deeper into the plan. -- seismo!gymble!speaker - Speaker "Earth is a great funhouse without the fun." -- Jeff Berner