The Resurrection

[Chas]

(12-01-2012 09:59 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 09:56 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I shake my head every time I hear/read that 'the son needed a purpose' bit. God shouldn't 'need' anything. And there would be absolutly no purpose for him to have a son anyway. I'm pretty sure you are just making this stuff up KC.



Stop that.

I stole your line. You can't steal it back.

Stop that.

But, no, not making stuff up. He didn't "need" (poor choice of words on my part) a purpose - that WAS His purpose; set up from infinity.

It's all made up.

[germanyt]

(12-01-2012 09:59 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 09:56 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I shake my head every time I hear/read that 'the son needed a purpose' bit. God shouldn't 'need' anything. And there would be absolutly no purpose for him to have a son anyway. I'm pretty sure you are just making this stuff up KC.



Stop that.

I stole your line. You can't steal it back.

Stop that.

But, no, not making stuff up. He didn't "need" (poor choice of words on my part) a purpose - that WAS His purpose; set up from infinity.

Just seems odd to me. I don't understand why that was the purpose. Or why there even needed to be a purpose. Why create Earth just to condemn your creation and kill your son for a completely unnecessary purpose? It sounds to me like you just accepted some other person philisophical interpretation of the bible with no real explanation for it. Like a 'this is what I think and it sounds good to me' kind of explanation.

[Azaraith]

(12-01-2012 04:40 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  I have a question, if tomorrow somehow the god of the bible is proven 100% beyond doubt
Would you believe? <stupid question ofcourse if theres proof
But would you worship/follow that immoral god?

Considering his violent tendencdies and promise to burn me in hell forever, I'd probably have to if Christianity (all of the teachings) was proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not gonna happen though (I'd be less surprised to see Santa Claus slide down my chimney).

(12-01-2012 09:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 01:33 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Ok, one thing that I've been wondering about that somehow made sense to me as a Christian, but now... not so much. I guess this is really a question for KC or anyone else that cares to chime in.

Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save humanity from himself?

This is opening up a whole new can or worms... and my fortitude is already starting to wear thin (with a few members), but I'll attempt to explain this:

1) We have to try and understand the concept of infinite and eternity. Never ending. Like, at all. So, before God set the events in motion that started humanity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were in existence. God is also infinite, and functions as 3 separate beings but act as one.

2) From infinity (time-wise), God had a plan that was going to be enacted. In this plan, the Son was given a purpose. His purpose was to be a sacrifice for the humanity that God created. God love His creations; however, the Son also needed a purpose*.

*God just didn't created more perfect gods because of the paradox of omnipotence I explained it in the Ask a Theist thread*
1) Ok, I really want to go into some detail on this. Just to let you know (you might not care), but Christians roll their eyes at these particular questions. Atheists and non-believers like to ask this and it's akin to a Creationists telling an Evolutionist that if we came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys. You think it's your ace-in-the-hole, but theologically speaking it's more of a facepalm. If you really, really want to annoy Christians when you're debating them, keep asking this question in some form and make them extensively and exhaustively explain it. Oh and use semantics on them too. They'll start to rage pretty quickly (need to stop giving y'all tactics <_<).

Anyhoo, the explanation: the question is a contradiction. God cannot contradict himself. Also, the question is a fallacy of semantics (as aforementioned). God is all powerful, therefore He cannot be something that He isn't. If He creates something that defies His power then we've created a circular paradox. And while, it's lulzy for you, it isn't a fair question to the theist. If you REALLY want to annoy an Arminian Christian, use this same tactic when addressing free will and omniscience... if they counter with, "well God is all powerful, so He gave us the power to be able to choose", then ask them how an all powerful God can relinquish His power to a human? Doesn't that take away from His omnipotence.

You see, God is either all power or He isn't. Since God is all powerful He cannot create a paradox about His power. But, as I've stated, if you want to get lulzy with Christians, keep hammering this.

3) In order for the Son to have a purpose, there needed to be imperfect beings with the His image implanted upon them. So, sin had to be placed upon humanity. However, sin creates death and can only be reconciled with another death.

4) Christ was perfect; thus, the ultimate death and sacrifice for humanity's sins.

5) Now, that the Son's purpose was served, the Holy Spirit's purpose could be unveiled - to be a mediator to God for us.

Ok, thanks. Still, not sure why death requires another death to attone for it... To be honest, I don't really think the Trinity concept can be understood, it never made a lick of sense to me. I always understood that God, Jesus and Holy Spirit were one entity, one being. Otherwise, Christianity isn't monotheistic. From there, such things as one form of God sacrificing another form of God to the original form of God didn't make sense. If I understand you though, they function as 3 (they are 3 beings in essence) but act in one accord - Jesus cannot rebel against God? How is that not polytheism though?

[kingschosen]

(12-01-2012 10:14 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Just seems odd to me. I don't understand why that was the purpose. Or why there even needed to be a purpose. Why create Earth just to condemn your creation and kill your son for a completely unnecessary purpose? It sounds to me like you just accepted some other person philisophical interpretation of the bible with no real explanation for it. Like a 'this is what I think and it sounds good to me' kind of explanation.

Nah, I get that.

I understand how it doesn't make sense. For me, though, since I believe, this is the most consistent theology presented that aligns with the Bible and what we know about God.

There is always the element of faith that's involved. No matter how rational and coherent my explanations, there will always be a unexplainable sliver of faith involved that makes sense to the believer and befuddles the non-believer.

---

(12-01-2012 10:49 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  If I understand you though, they function as 3 (they are 3 beings in essence) but act in one accord - Jesus cannot rebel against God? How is that not polytheism though?

Hmmm...

Okay, have you reasoned things out in your head? Like thought about things, almost had a conversation with yourself? Your internal self is obviously yourself even though different thoughts are being relayed. Does this make you a multiple person?

[TalladegaTom]

(12-01-2012 09:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 01:33 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Ok, one thing that I've been wondering about that somehow made sense to me as a Christian, but now... not so much. I guess this is really a question for KC or anyone else that cares to chime in.

Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save humanity from himself?

This is opening up a whole new can or worms... and my fortitude is already starting to wear thin (with a few members), but I'll attempt to explain this:

1) We have to try and understand the concept of infinite and eternity. Never ending. Like, at all. So, before God set the events in motion that started humanity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were in existence. God is also infinite, and functions as 3 separate beings but act as one.

2) From infinity (time-wise), God had a plan that was going to be enacted. In this plan, the Son was given a purpose. His purpose was to be a sacrifice for the humanity that God created. God love His creations; however, the Son also needed a purpose*.

*God just didn't created more perfect gods because of the paradox of omnipotence I explained it in the Ask a Theist thread*
1) Ok, I really want to go into some detail on this. Just to let you know (you might not care), but Christians roll their eyes at these particular questions. Atheists and non-believers like to ask this and it's akin to a Creationists telling an Evolutionist that if we came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys. You think it's your ace-in-the-hole, but theologically speaking it's more of a facepalm. If you really, really want to annoy Christians when you're debating them, keep asking this question in some form and make them extensively and exhaustively explain it. Oh and use semantics on them too. They'll start to rage pretty quickly (need to stop giving y'all tactics <_<).

Anyhoo, the explanation: the question is a contradiction. God cannot contradict himself. Also, the question is a fallacy of semantics (as aforementioned). God is all powerful, therefore He cannot be something that He isn't. If He creates something that defies His power then we've created a circular paradox. And while, it's lulzy for you, it isn't a fair question to the theist. If you REALLY want to annoy an Arminian Christian, use this same tactic when addressing free will and omniscience... if they counter with, "well God is all powerful, so He gave us the power to be able to choose", then ask them how an all powerful God can relinquish His power to a human? Doesn't that take away from His omnipotence.

You see, God is either all power or He isn't. Since God is all powerful He cannot create a paradox about His power. But, as I've stated, if you want to get lulzy with Christians, keep hammering this.

3) In order for the Son to have a purpose, there needed to be imperfect beings with the His image implanted upon them. So, sin had to be placed upon humanity. However, sin creates death and can only be reconciled with another death.

4) Christ was perfect; thus, the ultimate death and sacrifice for humanity's sins.

5) Now, that the Son's purpose was served, the Holy Spirit's purpose could be unveiled - to be a mediator to God for us.

"3) In order for the Son to have a purpose, there needed to be imperfect beings with the His image implanted upon them. So, sin had to be placed upon humanity. However, sin creates death and can only be reconciled with another death. "

Oh my.
This is serious nonsense.
KC, doesn't this at all sound ridiculous and just plain weird to you?

[kingschosen]

(12-01-2012 12:17 PM)TalladegaTom Wrote:  "3) In order for the Son to have a purpose, there needed to be imperfect beings with the His image implanted upon them. So, sin had to be placed upon humanity. However, sin creates death and can only be reconciled with another death. "

Oh my.
This is serious nonsense.
KC, doesn't this at all sound ridiculous and just plain weird to you?

As I told germanyt, it was a poor wording choice on my part. I should have said, "In order for His purpose to be fulfilled."

And no, it makes perfect sense to me.

[germanyt]

(12-01-2012 10:57 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nah, I get that.

I understand how it doesn't make sense. For me, though, since I believe, this is the most consistent theology presented that aligns with the Bible and what we know about God.

I think that maybe you mold your faith into this because you are smart enough to know that evolution is real and the universe is billions of years old. You don't want to give up on your faith but you can't give up on science either.

[TalladegaTom]

(12-01-2012 12:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 12:17 PM)TalladegaTom Wrote:  "3) In order for the Son to have a purpose, there needed to be imperfect beings with the His image implanted upon them. So, sin had to be placed upon humanity. However, sin creates death and can only be reconciled with another death. "

Oh my.
This is serious nonsense.
KC, doesn't this at all sound ridiculous and just plain weird to you?

As I told germanyt, it was a poor wording choice on my part. I should have said, "In order for His purpose to be fulfilled."

And no, it makes perfect sense to me.

Seriously think that through.
It truly makes no sense even with that wording.
Consider all the other possible schemes that 'god' could have used, and you quickly see that this particular story was man made. Marvel Comics could have done better.
No being capable of creating a universe such as we see today could possibly be so silly as to devise such an odd and cumbersome idea...that isn't even working I might add.
It makes sense to you because you refuse to put some reasonable thought into it.

[TheBeardedDude]

When I think of a question like this, I try to think of how and why the religion itself originated and what it originated from. Think about the Old Testament. Sacrifices of burnt flesh were common. Think about other religions. Sacrifice of flesh was also common, even human flesh. There were some cultures that believed a sacrifice must be made every morning before the sun will rise. A sacrifice was seen as some necessary offering of worldly goods to the god(s) who controls their world. The legend around Jesus' crucifixion would have came in to existence well after his death, but let's assume that it started immediately after his resurrection. The people at the time never questioned it and accepted it as true. Why? Offerings were seen as necessary in order to appease God. They used the sacrifice of Jesus as an excuse to never sacrifice anything else. The paradox of god sacrificing himself was apparently never an issue to them and even the writers obviously never considered it a problem. This is what we might call a blooper in today's terms but back then it was simply not an issue. A sacrifice was apparently needed to alleviate the sins from oneself. Jewish culture actually teaches that you can take all of your sin and put it in a chicken and then sacrifice the chicken, so why is the story of God sacrificing himself to himself any more absurd or difficult to reconcile? It was a story, a myth, a legend that was never intended to be questioned or viewed from a skeptical point of view.

[Jackrabbit]

The trinity is a source for endless mental masturbation xD