From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:04:44 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2681@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:
> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca wrote:
> : 
> :  <2667@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:
> : >> THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
> : >> A LOVING GOD.
> : >>
> : > From a Christian perspective, based on the Bible (as I read it of course),
> : > there is a tension here.  And this tension is maintained throughout the
> : > scriptures.  The tension is that of the complex nature of God.  From a 
> : > Biblical basis, yes, God is loving.  
> : >                                     But that does not say enough.  That is
> : >>simply one aspect of God.  The Bible also portrays God as the just judge.
> : > 
> : 
> : Here's what I think: this "justice" is incompatible with any meaningful
> : definition of loving. HE creates us as the miserable sinning creatures we
> : supposedly are - then he "justly" condemns us for being miserable
> : sinning creatures.  
> 
> From a Biblical perspective I must disagree with this statement.
> 
> 1)  Humankind was not originally created as "miserable sinning creatures".
>     The Genesis narratives indicate that it was a humankind's own choice
>     which put humankind in this position.
> 
> 2)  Love meets Justice in God's act of redemption, through which humankind
>     is offered the way out of their position.
> 
> Some additional thoughts on "condemnation" which might be helpful.  From
> my perspective, condemnation is the current state of man, and is best 
> described as eternal separation from God.  Thus redemption is seen as
> restoring the broken relationship between God and humankind, which results
> in the cancellation of the "condemned" state of the person.
> 
> : a) that is not justice, except in the most circular sense ("God is just,
> : so whatever he does is just by definition")
> 
> Some semantic disagreement here.  
> 
> God acts justly, according to a constant "guideline" (I can't think of a 
> better word) for justice.  I would hold that God does not by whim change
> the definition of justice to encompass His actions.  Rather His actions
> fall within a constant.  I would reword your statement as follows
> 
> "Because God acts in a just manner, what He does is just"
> 
> See the difference between the two?  In yours, the actions make the
> definition, in mine, the definition guides the actions.
> 
> : b) it is ruthless in the extreme. In fact, it goes beyond ruthless to 
> : cruel, infinitely cruel, and by definition, infinitely heartless.
> 
> Perhaps it may seem so, but since the key theme of the Bible (as I see
> it), is God restoring relationship with man (i.e. offering a way out),
> then this must be compared with the above.  Cruel and heartless is 
> offering no hope and no help.
> 
> : c) and don't start talking about his "sacrifice" of his son...come on -
> : the guy suffered for a few hours and then was resurrected to eternal
> : glory.  And he KNEW he wasn't really going to die permanently. Pauline
> : theology is a mess - but no one will admit it! Well - almost no one...you
> : know who you are...:)
> 
> OK, I won't start talking about it.  (However, I might disagree with 
> your use of KNEW, how about trusted/believed the Father?)
> 
> : > But, Jesus is god.  And Jesus isn't dead, is he?  If he is god and he
> : > didn't die, then what did he sacrifice?  Sounds like the old cosmic shell
> : > game to me - "Let's see, I'll set up this situation where my 'creations'
> : > cannot possibly live up to my expectations.  Then I'll kill them for it,
> : > or at the least punish them a lot.  But, just to keep them interested in
> : > me, I'll send 'part of me' down there to 'die' so that I'll be satisfied
> : > for these mortals sinning.  If they fall for all this then I won't kill
> : > kill them <maniacal laughter fades into the background...>
> :
> : I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this challenge. Go for it,
> : lads...
> 
> (again, arguing from a Biblical basis) 
> 
> The sacrifice was that Jesus gave up His deity, assumed the form of a
> man, lived the life of a man (except without sin), and then gave up what
> he had -- his life -- in order to offer what was required to redeem man.
> 
> Where I would disagree with the above paragraph is (on a Biblical basis):
> 
> 1)  "he didn't die".  The Bible says He did die, but was resurrected.
> 2)  As I said above, humankind made a choice which resulted in their
>     present situation, not God.
> 3)  God did offer an alternative to deal with sin.  The blood sacrifice.
>     However, the initial "implementation" did not offer a permenant
>     solution since the sacrifices had to be continually offered.  The
>     blood sacrifice of Christ did offer a permenant solution because
>     Christ was the perfect sacrifice, because Christ was blameless
>     and without sin.
> 4)  The goal of God is not to punish humankind.  It is to redeem 
>     humankind from their state of separation from God.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mark McGregor -- mmcgreg@uswnvg.com
> 
> UW 31 - ASU 7
> 
> It appears that the Sun Devils are off to a stellar start.  Last year 
> UW scored 40+ points against them, so things are looking a lot better.
> Hope springs eternal...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism