quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: On the flip side, if something, some new information or new way of interpreting things, make it easier to believe that the Flood may have happened, does that translate into an easier time believing in the resurrection?
Yes. But that 'yes' comes with a qualifier. If some new information or evidence came around for the Flood and it was exactly (or at least close) to how it was described in the Bible...then yes, the Bible would get a little more solid factual footing and believing in the resurrection would thus be easier.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
Correct, it was necessary for Jesus to take upon himself the sins of the world as well as rise from the dead. Personally I think it's theologically sound that if Jesus had not been executed he would have eventually allowed himself to die and still risen from the dead.
I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: But I'm sure you get my point. =D
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
You forgot the third priestly option.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Does that mean that even if god spelled it out he wouldn't let the people not do it, or that the people would have gone and killed him anyway even if god spelled it out for them?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Correct, it was necessary for Jesus to take upon himself the sins of the world as well as rise from the dead. Personally I think it's theologically sound that if Jesus had not been executed he would have eventually allowed himself to die and still risen from the dead.
I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Ok, just trying to understand. So Christ was required to suffer on the cross in order to take upon the sins *and* rise from the dead. However, only his death (peaceful or violent) was required for the second part, the resurrection.
Question: So in some sense, is it "better" that he died on the cross rather than peacefully (for Christians that is ... obviously not better for Christ I guess, or is it)?
The second bit is interesting too. I've had the impression, like you, that God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified. However, I never had a source for this impression. Is there actual foreshadowing in the Bible, were there opinions by scholars/figures in the church? Or is this just a trivial personal deduction from the fact that God knows all and could predict it (presumably not being bound by Heisenburg's Uncertainty)?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, just trying to understand. So Christ was required to suffer on the cross in order to take upon the sins *and* rise from the dead. However, only his death (peaceful or violent) was required for the second part, the resurrection.
Err not exactly. Mormons believe that most if not all of the atonement (paying for sins) took place in the garden of Gethsemane. The most difficult part of Christ's mission took place in that garden. Many other Christians do not believe this however, some see the entire ordeal garden + cross as Christ suffering for the sins of the world. But you are right that his death is to ressurection as his suffering is to redeeming mankind.
quote:Question: So in some sense, is it "better" that he died on the cross rather than peacefully (for Christians that is ... obviously not better for Christ I guess, or is it)?
Not in any sense I can think of. People killing the son of God is still considered by God to be horrendously sinful.
quote:The second bit is interesting too. I've had the impression, like you, that God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified. However, I never had a source for this impression. Is there actual foreshadowing in the Bible, were there opinions by scholars/figures in the church? Or is this just a trivial personal deduction from the fact that God knows all and could predict it (presumably not being bound by Heisenburg's Uncertainty)?
A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement. For Mormons the Book of Mormon foreshadows it even clearer.
I really need to rush off to work, when I get back I'll pull out my scriptures and quote you a few, or perhaps another hatracker can do that in the mean time. I'll be back from work in about 5 hours.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember that for Trinitarian Christians (most of us) Jesus is God. God didn't just sacrifice a son (somebody else), God was that son.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons believe that most if not all of the atonement (paying for sins) took place in the garden of Gethsemane.
That's not official doctrine, though. It's not like there was a sin-o-meter that weighed how many sins were expiated when.
quote: The most difficult part of Christ's mission took place in that garden.
I'm not sure that's true either-- in the Garden, an angel was sent to comfort him. On the cross, he suffered alone-- utterly, completely alone, without God or the Holy Spirit present so that he could take on the pains of even the worst sinners. That's the reason he cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not in any sense I can think of. People killing the son of God is still considered by God to be horrendously sinful.
Sorry, maybe I should rephrase that, I do not mean for the people at the time. I mean for a Christian now, living after Christ's time when (assuming his human form had a normal human lifespan) Christ is long dead, one way or another. For someone that does not share the sin of killing Christ, aren't you kind of better off that Christ died by suffering on the cross to redeem the rest of mankind rather than Christ dying some kind of natural death, accomplishing only the resurrection but no suffering and redeeming?
quote:A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement. For Mormons the Book of Mormon foreshadows it even clearer.
Cool. I'd be particularly interested in the verses from the Old Testament, verses that have some kind of analogue/parallel with the Torah.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement.
*cough* Try instead "a Christian reading." There are plenty of "solid" readings that do no such thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the OP, I don't quite understand how you reason from "The Bible's morals are not my morals" to "I am an atheist". To coin a term, you seem to be more of an a-Bible-ist - you don't believe in the Bible. That doesn't, strictly speaking, have any bearing on whether or not you believe there is a god, or even the Christian god. I think you should set this straight within yourself before you go about proclaiming your atheism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Christian/atheist false dichotomy is pervasive in our society, especially amongst Christians. I don't blame him for defining his atheism in terms of his inability to reconcile himself with Christianity and his comments about mysticism indicate to me that he's not looking for another religion to join. Given that Christianity was the only theism that he really experienced, his rejection of it is sufficient to define him, at least provisionally, as an atheist.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
And if you were that man, wouldn't you allow yourself to be tortured for three days, or even try to make it happen, if you were going to be the ruler of the universe afterward?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: But I'm sure you get my point. =D
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
You forgot the third priestly option.
Not really... But it would have sounded strange to mention the priest here too, wouldn't it? As if every priest were the opposite of this Samariter.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: I could have sworn I said, "Most Mormons" but I clearly did not. But beyond that, James E Talmage makes a point of speaking about Gethsemane and how the atonement was accomplished there not on the cross, but then he also talks about some step in the atonement happening on the cross namely God removing his presence from Christ. But I agree saying many Mormons believe...etc would be more true.
Rivka:
quote:*cough* Try instead "a Christian reading." There are plenty of "solid" readings that do no such thing.
Sorry Christian habit of saying Christ instead of Messiah. As for crucifixion, I don't think you have to be a Christian to see some of the references in The Old Testament about the Messiah and things that would happen to him. Christians do take some of the things that happened to Christ and tie them to those verses in the Old Testament. But I'd rather not argue with you as I do agree with you that plenty of people read the Old Testament and see nothing that references Christ, but *I* can hardly call those solid readings when I believe the point of the entire Old Testament is to point towards the advent of Christ.
Mucus: I'll make a new thread about Old Testament references to the Messiah that I think are worthy of note.
Strider:
quote:Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
Jesus makes this point many many times. But it was not requisite that Jesus be crucified IMO. I think he could have laid down his life without others trying to kill him. I personally believe that Jesus was not actually killed on the cross, he simply finished what he had been commanded to do, and chose to forfeit his life while on the cross.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the OP, I don't quite understand how you reason from "The Bible's morals are not my morals" to "I am an atheist". To coin a term, you seem to be more of an a-Bible-ist - you don't believe in the Bible. That doesn't, strictly speaking, have any bearing on whether or not you believe there is a god, or even the Christian god. I think you should set this straight within yourself before you go about proclaiming your atheism.
I reject Christianity and other religions on realistic grounds: I accept Christ's virgin birth and resurrection, the visions of Joseph Smith, the ascension of Mohammed, the laws of Moses, the probability of Ragnarok, the idea of karma, the war between Zeus and his father, and the tales of Shiva equally. As myth.
I reject them on moral grounds. Almost all religions seem to be bent on the elimination of the ego--the self. I can understand the elimination of material attachments--these are usually weaknesses that draw one away from one's purpose. But I detest the idea of eliminating the self in favor of--what, some sort of enlightenment?
In my English 1102 class, we wrote bios for our portfolios. We peer-reviewed them. Of the five I read, all of them were one quarter to two thirds composed of something like, "Jesus is the most important thing in my life, and so is the Bible. Without Jesus I am nothing. Everything I do I owe to God. Nothing I do is worth anything without Jesus. Jesus is what defines my life. I owe it all to Jesus. I plan to give my life to Jesus totally and completely, and do everything for Him."
The will to give over one's life to a cause is understandable; in this, however, I saw the elimination of the self. There is an abasement in this to the point that one loses one's dignity and self-respect: if nothing you do is your own, what matters to you, exactly? It allows you to become a tool--not just for God, but anyone you believe is in God's service. Worse, if taken far enough, it allows you to treat others as tools. It eliminates one's humanity. And almost every religion requires something of the kind.
Moral systems tend to be reactive rather than proactive. A proactive moral system decides what is Good, and everything that is not is Bad--simply undesirable. A reactive system defines what is Evil first, and then makes everything else Good or neutral. Evil is a particularly bad concept because it seems to migrate from defining an act to defining a person, to the point that they are dehumanized. Perhaps it is bitterness, but having been treated this way enough before--I rather dislike it. I'll not have anyone deny me my humanity. I'd rather have a proactive moral system than the reactive one of religion.
Religions seem to discourage questioning. Notice how many moral laws are given in the Bible; now, how many are explained? How often are we told the reason something is bad, in comparison to how often we are simply told that it is wrong or abominable? We are not encouraged to find the basic principles of morality and then work out moral codes ourselves. We are simply given instructions. I find the idea of free will that theists like to harp on rather silly. We are also often told that authority figures are in place by the will of the divine in scripture itself. This is a reason that it makes me think most religions exist as an instrument to maintain power on the part of the ruling class.
I can seize bits and pieces of each religion that I like. But that does not make me a follower of that religion.
Here's my problem with each religion I've encountered: Buddhism: seeks the obliteration of the ego Hinduism: so mixed up in mythologies and folklores that it easily encourages atrocity Islam: violence inherent in its message, oftentimes, despite the efforts to excuse it. Confuscianism: barely a religion, but if so, demands one utterly submit to authority Christianity: I've said quite a lot.
Paganism and Judaism I quite like: Paganism for its proactive approach to morals and Judaism for its emphasis and study, learning, and understanding. Sadly, I can't really buy into the mythologies that go with either of these.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty. In order to forgive humans their sins, he must become a human, and suffer human temptation. Only then is he capable of having sympathy for us poor imperfect humans. Thus only then can we be forgiven our sins.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean to say that the basic underpinning of theism is an irrevocable, inarguable assumption, and defending it is hardly difficult.
Apparently it is arguable, as there are many here who argue against it.
We can only go so far as to suggest that this assumption is incorrect. This forces the athiest to try to prove the negative, which is again, impossible. The problem is that for me, the assumption is baseless and for all practical purposes perfectly useless. I find theism frustrating because if there are real believers, people who base all their perceptions on the concept of a God created world, (which I actually doubt), then those people are capable of viewing my suggestion within the framework of their beliefs- and so become incapable of understanding any concept of the world outside that framework.
Religion is to me not unlike the second half of 1984- whatever peace submission may entail, it's a ghastly sight to me.
The reason I called your statement pigheaded was this: you summed up the core of athiesm in the way that religious people are trained to view it. This description carries the added bonus of being wrong, at least for many many atheists. Unfortunately this description is widespread, and I've encountered it many times- religious people looking upon me as if I just don't get it, as if someone could explain the faith thing to me in another way and I would be out of the woods.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty.
Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits? I'm not a watchmaker (nor a watch), but I understand that a spring can only undergo so much stress.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
I like this. I subscribe. What a pity Telp that you live on the other side of the Atlantic, because otherwise we could get together for a non-prayer non-meeting...
hehehe...
I have great respect for religion in some ways, as in the inspiration to create some of the greatest works of art/music/architecture.
But dogma is also the greatest evil to humanity as it also limits free thought and the belief that the followers of whatever faith are the true holders of the truth and have their fingers on the ethical heartbeat of the Universe. Very arrogant imho.
In the end I'd describe myself as a Humanist, as the only judge of right and wrong are Humans and what is good for the Human species.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the early Christians wanted to be seen by Rome as the legitimate successors to Judaism. Judaism had some level of respect in Rome as an "ancient" (old, established) religion and thus Jews had exemptions from a lot of the otherwise required civic religious duties. Being seen as something completely new was not an advantage in that setting.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits?
That is the point, actually. This goes back to the logical conundrum: Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?
As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited, which is a limitation unto itself. But by creating a subset of himself that is wholly independent, he can experience the limits that go with NOT being omnipotent and omnicient, thus bypassing the logic problem.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited
Why not. I mean, I can try to imagine what it means to be black, in poverty, an astronaut, a woman, or a zillion other things that I am not likely to ever actually experience. I may or may not be pretty close to the mark on any of those things, but that's because of my limited -science and -potence. If God is omnipotent/omniscient, shouldn't he be able to understand these things without having to actually experience them himself.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
I'm sorry but early persecution of Christians BY Jews almost certainly qualifies as one of the main reasons for a later reversal of the roles, it's too bad so many Christians failed to live up to expectations.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we also point out that anti-semitism had a lot to do with power?
After the first few centuries, the church had temporal as well as spiritual power, but it all depended on recognition of them as spiritual authority. The Jews did not grant them this, and were therefore a threat.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited
Why not. I mean, I can try to imagine what it means to be black, in poverty, an astronaut, a woman, or a zillion other things that I am not likely to ever actually experience. I may or may not be pretty close to the mark on any of those things, but that's because of my limited -science and -potence. If God is omnipotent/omniscient, shouldn't he be able to understand these things without having to actually experience them himself.
Yeah, but all those things you listed are experienced by other people with basically the same tools you have--human bodies, human senses, human mind, etc. Can you understand what it's like to be a worm, a bacterium, a fish? That's a closer comparison, I'd say.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sorry but early persecution of Christians BY Jews almost certainly qualifies as one of the main reasons for a later reversal of the roles, it's too bad so many Christians failed to live up to expectations.
This is not supported by any historical evidence I am aware of.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, that early Christians were persecuted by the Jews? Of course they were. Ethnic cults tend to do that to heretics. That this early persecution was the cause of the later reversal, well, I think BlackBlade is on rather shakier ground there. I don't believe there is much institutional continuity between the early heretic-Jew cult and the later widespread state religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That this early persecution was the cause of the later reversal, well, I think BlackBlade is on rather shakier ground there.
posted
I never said it was THE cause I said one of the main reasons. James the Just was executed by Herod purely so that the Jews would like him more.
Saul of Tarsus was also executed because the Jews demanded it. Look maybe the Christians just ignored these events and didn't really mean it when they called the Jews Christ killers, but I find that very difficult to reasonably establish. I have no problem believing that Jewish persecution of Christians did nothing to embitter the Christian population towards them, but from what I have seen, it just is not that way. I'll look some things up and see what I can come up with, it's not as if I need to find a reason for the early Christians to dislike the Jews.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
That statement is fatally simplistic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits?
That is the point, actually. This goes back to the logical conundrum: Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?
As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited, which is a limitation unto itself. But by creating a subset of himself that is wholly independent, he can experience the limits that go with NOT being omnipotent and omnicient, thus bypassing the logic problem.
Doesn't omniscience remove all doubt? Isn't the idea of being omniscient the ability to already know everything? If that is limited, then nothing is unlimited- so what is god?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that God became human so God could understand us; I think that God became man to help us better understand God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that God became human so God could understand us; I think that God became man to help us better understand God.
And given the huge differences in understanding, just among Christians, let alone the rest of the world, do you think he succeeded?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We now understand that he really does love all people. A lot of prophets and Isrealites of the Old Testament didn't get that. We now understand that God too is willing to make sacrifices so that people can get to heaven. We now understand that the Messiah need not be a warrior to drive out whichever conquerers that occupy Isreal at the moment. We also now fully understand that God meant us to be his friends and his companions, as he became our friend and companion.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think he could have laid down his life without others trying to kill him.
This is obviously very speculative, but how do you guess that would have happened if no one was trying to kill him?
Joldo: Reading your posts, I'm starting to think you may be more of a genuine anti-theist rather than an atheist
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty. In order to forgive humans their sins, he must become a human, and suffer human temptation. Only then is he capable of having sympathy for us poor imperfect humans. Thus only then can we be forgiven our sins.
That is certainly an interesting idea and vaguely reminiscent of the many compelling stories about gods and aliens taking human form. From a story point of view, it would at least "humanise" God as a character and explain why he becomes so much more compassionate after the Old Testament.
Is this a widespread or mainstream belief though? Although I am not privy to the details, IIRC "The Last Temptation of Christ" courted a fair amount of controversy from Christians for its depiction.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't He have taught essentially the same lessons from the beginning by, say, not exterminating so many people and ordering regular genocides? I mean, why should His willingness to temporarily suffer a little pain be such an important and useful lesson when contrasted with millennia of behavior?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joldo: Reading your posts, I'm starting to think you may be more of a genuine anti-theist rather than an atheist
I am. It takes a genuine revulsion for me to fully reject a part of myself, as I do with Christianity now. If I'd simply felt neutral or apathetic, I'd still let it dangle like an atrophied limb.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is obviously very speculative, but how do you guess that would have happened if no one was trying to kill him?
Jesus said in regards to His own life, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
If we are to believe Jesus it sounds like he was given the power to die whenever He so chose, but would only exercise that power when commanded to by His father. IMHO I think Jesus could have simply laid down and died.
Tom:
quote:Couldn't He have taught essentially the same lessons from the beginning by, say, not exterminating so many people and ordering regular genocides? I mean, why should His willingness to temporarily suffer a little pain be such an important and useful lesson when contrasted with millennia of behavior?
Regular genocides seems likes an exaggeration Tom. Especially in light of the fact that nobody knows the situation, all we have is the record of the people who did the killing. Also I take issue with your statement that God only endured, "Temporary suffering." It supposes that God is mentally indifferent towards what His children do, have done, and will do. I don't think that is accurate. I believe Jesus came down to demonstrate what perfection is. Love for all men, a complete willingness to be humble before God, and a life devoted to the service of others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps if God had suffered for all eternity, rather than 3 days, he would do away with Hell entirely.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think that the limitation is not the lesson but our ability to learn what God has to teach.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps if God had suffered for all eternity, rather than 3 days, he would do away with Hell entirely.
Mormons (this Mormon anyway) believes that Christ suffered the pains of Hell just as he did the pains of life. Within my understanding of our theology, even those in "hell" can repent and be forgiven.
AND, anyway-- Mormons don't believe in an eternity of suffering.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is not supported by any historical evidence I am aware of.
