Abba not Father....

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system.

Do you believe that it is just or sensible or meaningful in any way for a judge, when punishing a crime to apply the sentence or punishment to anyone other than the criminal? Do you believe that punishment is a form of just payment for a crime in a currency sort of way and not ...[text shortened]... nces between human concepts of justice and the heavenly justice you are trying to explain to me.

Do you believe that it is just or sensible or meaningful in any way for a judge, when punishing a crime to apply the sentence or punishment to anyone other than the criminal? WHITEY

If the judge felt that in reality the responsibility for the crime lay elsewhere then and that it was morally unjust for the criminal to be held responsible then yes.

To relate this back to God , one way of looking at the cross is in a sense God is taking responsibility for our crimes (sin) on himself. He's saying "you are made of clay , I created you and this is my responsibilty to deal with" . It's like a father who goes into the school to pay for the broken window his son had smashed on his behalf but asks him also pay his bit too as a learning experience (the cost for us is repentance). He recognises as the child's father that he has a responsibility also. The child is under his wing. The window still has to be paid for though and the child has to see it paid to know what the cost was so he can gain knowledge of the wrong that took place and see how much his father cares. He might plead on behalf of the child to the principal "forgive him for he knew not what he was doing"

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system.

Do you believe that it is just or sensible or meaningful in any way for a judge, when punishing a crime to apply the sentence or punishment to anyone other than the criminal? Do you believe that punishment is a form of just payment for a crime in a currency sort of way and not ...[text shortened]... nces between human concepts of justice and the heavenly justice you are trying to explain to me.

Do you believe that punishment is a form of just payment for a crime in a currency sort of way and not that its purpose is to correct behavior and discourage further criminal acts? WHITEY

In order for behaviour to be corrected the nature of the crime and it's cost to the victim must be brought home to the criminal. Just payment and behaviour correction are intertwined.

My son pushed my eldest at a coffee shop into a table last week (he's 6) . A old lady spilled her tea. I was cross and she was scrambling for tissues. She said "it's nothing don't worry him , the poor dear" . I took him over to her and showed him how hot the tea was and how he could have burnt her. I got him to say sorry. I got him to put 10p of his pocket money towards buying her another drink (but I paid most of it) . He looked very sheepish and then burst into tears. I gave him a huge hug and reassured him that I still loved him but also reminded him that there are consequences to his actions.

This is what God tries to do. He has to make known the cost. The old woman is out of pocket so it's only right she has a new tea.We cannot pay. The responsibility is taken by the father whilst still being correctional and as a massive bonus his love is demonstrated as well.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's why analogies are weak ways of arguing a position.

Not if they are understood correctly. If someone is determined to take an analogy and turn it round to try and say something it does not then it is tricky. Any good analogy (like a good play) requires a receptive audience prepared to go along with the meaning and intention of the analogy. If they do not do this it's no good the audience blaming the actors if they leave the theatre frustrated. It's a two way process.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system. WHITEY

I'm sorry , but I was under the misapprehension that God was precisely what we were talking about.

I was referring to that specific post as I was trying to understand your views better so as to understand the analogy better.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the judge felt that in reality the responsibility for the crime lay elsewhere then and that it was morally unjust for the criminal to be held responsible then yes.

But then the 'criminal' is not infact a criminal and innocent of all charges.

To relate this back to God , one way of looking at the cross is in a sense God is taking responsibility for our crimes (sin) on himself. He's saying "you are made of clay , I created you and this is my responsibilty to deal with".
Now we are getting somewhere. So God is punishing himself for the mistakes he made?

It's like a father who goes into the school to pay for the broken window his son had smashed on his behalf but asks him also pay his bit too as a learning experience (the cost for us is repentance). He recognises as the child's father that he has a responsibility also.
So what is the school in this analogy? A higher God? Who was God offending when he made the error?

The child is under his wing. The window still has to be paid for though ...
As above, who needs to be paid? Some higher God?

... and the child has to see it paid to know what the cost was so he can gain knowledge of the wrong that took place and see how much his father cares.
So when my dad whips himself (or commits suicide) for the mistakes he made in my up bringing then I know he loves me?

He might plead on behalf of the child to the principal "forgive him for he knew not what he was doing"
So Jesus is the wayward father and God the principle? (No insults intended in any way just trying to sort this all out in my mind)

So to summarize: God realized that he had made some errors in making us and that we were actually incapable of avoiding sin and thus not entirely to blame. He then decided to punish himself in order to show us the seriousness of our sins. We as a result should feel guilty, forgiven and loved.

I am still not getting the bit about 'somebodies got to pay'. I now understand partly the idea of God making a big show of it all to ensure that we learn the lesson, but I am sure that in earlier posts you implied that the punishment was not entirely about teaching us a lesson but also something about ensuring that justice is served and that for every sin someone must suffer etc. The implication being that God himself actually needs to be disciplined at times.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is what God tries to do. He has to make known the cost. The old woman is out of pocket so it's only right she has a new tea.We cannot pay. The responsibility is taken by the father whilst still being correctional and as a massive bonus his love is demonstrated as well.

If your son had spilt the tea on you, would it make sense for you to pay yourself for the tea and possibly give yourself a smack? Or is that the whole point of splitting God up: in order to make it more understandable.

So can we say that Jesus' crucifixion was not actually 'payment for our sins' but a lesson towards encouraging us not to sin in future? If so, doesn't it seem like it hasn't worked very well because Christians in general seem to sin just as much as us atheists (except for the whole 'lack of faith' sin)?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If your son had spilt the tea on you, would it make sense for you to pay yourself for the tea and possibly give yourself a smack? Or is that the whole point of splitting God up: in order to make it more understandable.

So can we say that Jesus' crucifixion was not actually 'payment for our sins' but a lesson towards encouraging us not to sin in future? ...[text shortened]... neral seem to sin just as much as us atheists (except for the whole 'lack of faith' sin)?

If your son had spilt the tea on you, would it make sense for you to pay yourself for the tea and possibly give yourself a smack? Or is that the whole point of splitting God up: in order to make it more understandable. WHITEY

This is a good way of looking at it actually. I will need to make adjustments to the analogy and ask you to think a bit more with your "emotional" brain rather than purely cognitive.

Imagine the hot tea is our sin for a minute. God is utterly Holy (to the point of unimaginable terrifying beauty) . Our sin (willful or other wise) is repulsive to him . It's like us spilling hot tea in his crotch (let your imagination go with it if you can) . Now if my son does this (maybe he means it as a prank , maybe not) my primary reaction is to lash out. I'm angry. I'm in severe pain. I may instead of smacking my son(if I am a loving father ) release that anger and pain on to myself.

This happened to me once and I found myself hopping around the room actually physically slapping my leg in pain . I also was aware that I was releasing my anger and hurt in a way that protected my son from the dangers of me smacking him (which part of me wanted to do but in reality I didn't want to ). Any parent will identify with moments like this. So yes , I was smacking myself , if you like , out of sheer reaction and as a way of protecting him.

Now before you start a rant on how God needs anger managment classes , try to consider how utterly repulsive and hurtful our sin can be for a Holy God who sees all. He is literally outraged (in a love anger way) by sin and evil. Imagine Bob Geldoff X 1 trillion. We feel repulsed by injustice and human evil because he put a little bit of himself in us , but his love anger is far greater. In a way the cross is like God grinding his teeth and smacking himself out of love for us. The two parts of his nature (compassion and wrath) being reconciled in christ. The important aspect here is that we are not just talking judicial punishment here but a clash between darkness and light , sin and holiness , good and evil. The two do not mix , they repel against each other like oil and water. This could explain why the cross is such a violent place. God holiness wants to repel us , lash out - God's love wants to embrace us and forgive. In christ , his love wins out whilst preserving holiness.

Try to understand that God's love and justice are wrapped up in one. Try to understand it like a human being and not a computer. For example , do you not feel outraged by injustice sometimes? How does it feel ? Isn't it hard to hate the sin but still love the person? Be angry at what they have done but forgive them also?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If your son had spilt the tea on you, would it make sense for you to pay yourself for the tea and possibly give yourself a smack? Or is that the whole point of splitting God up: in order to make it more understandable.

So can we say that Jesus' crucifixion was not actually 'payment for our sins' but a lesson towards encouraging us not to sin in future? ...[text shortened]... neral seem to sin just as much as us atheists (except for the whole 'lack of faith' sin)?

So can we say that Jesus' crucifixion was not actually 'payment for our sins' but a lesson towards encouraging us not to sin in future? WHITEY

In a word ..no

Originally posted by twhitehead
But then the 'criminal' is not infact a criminal and innocent of all charges.

[b]To relate this back to God , one way of looking at the cross is in a sense God is taking responsibility for our crimes (sin) on himself. He's saying "you are made of clay , I created you and this is my responsibilty to deal with".
Now we are getting somewhere. So God ...[text shortened]... tc. The implication being that God himself actually needs to be disciplined at times.[/b]

So what is the school in this analogy? A higher God? Who was God offending when he made the error? WHITEY

Again ...pedantry. When I come up with a full proof analogy that works on every level and in every way I will let you know. Until then you must accept that analogies are incomplete and focus on one aspect at a time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But then the 'criminal' is not infact a criminal and innocent of all charges.

[b]To relate this back to God , one way of looking at the cross is in a sense God is taking responsibility for our crimes (sin) on himself. He's saying "you are made of clay , I created you and this is my responsibilty to deal with".
Now we are getting somewhere. So God ...[text shortened]... tc. The implication being that God himself actually needs to be disciplined at times.[/b]

I am still not getting the bit about 'somebodies got to pay'. WHITEY

I have a thought experiment for you. Hypothetically if God does exist and he is completely Holy and you accept that we are living in darkness and full of sin. What would you propose (hypothetically) that God do about this state of affairs . How might he rectify the situation whilst not contaminating or compromising his own nature or holiness. How are pure light and darkness to be brought together ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a good way of looking at it actually. I will need to make adjustments to the analogy and ask you to think a bit more with your "emotional" brain rather than purely cognitive.

I don't have much of an "emotional" brain which might explain why I am so pro-science and a good computer programmer and maybe not so good at relationships.

I may instead of smacking my son(if I am a loving father ) release that anger and pain on to myself.
I do that but also know exactly why I do it and do not see how that would apply to God. It would imply that God has what could almost be called imperfections though of course that depends on how you look at it. There are psychological reasons for such behavior amongst humans which are either very valid for our environment or simply side effects of our makup, but I very much doubt that if God has similar attributes that they are for the same reasons to using our own behavior as an explanation is hardly valid.
But then again the old testament does portray God as having remarkably human qualities including anger, jealousy etc but as I say, trying to explain them using humans just doesn't add up.

.... his love wins out whilst preserving holiness.
I still don't get that whole 'preserving holiness' or 'preserving justice' bit. Its as if you think that for every sin there must be a punishment, but you are yet to genuinely explain why. You seem to take it as an obvious fact when it isn't.

How does it feel ? Isn't it hard to hate the sin but still love the person? Be angry at what they have done but forgive them also?
I still don't get how this translates into the crucifixion. I really don't get it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have a thought experiment for you. Hypothetically if God does exist and he is completely Holy and you accept that we are living in darkness and full of sin. What would you propose (hypothetically) that God do about this state of affairs . How might he rectify the situation whilst not contaminating or compromising his own nature or holiness. How are pure light and darkness to be brought together ?

Thats far too deep for me. I don't honestly know what it means to be Holy in the first place. Its a word used extensively by Christians but I don't actually know what it means to you.
However since the definition of sin seems to be 'a transgression against Gods wishes' surely the best thing to do would be to stop people from sinning. Why not simply put everyone straight in heaven?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats far too deep for me. I don't honestly know what it means to be Holy in the first place. Its a word used extensively by Christians but I don't actually know what it means to you.
However since the definition of sin seems to be 'a transgression against Gods wishes' surely the best thing to do would be to stop people from sinning. Why not simply put everyone straight in heaven?

I don't honestly know what it means to be Holy in the first place. WHITEY

You have values don't you? The opposite of holy or wholeness is fragmentation and hypocrisy. Holiness is living out of your true self in harmony. Darkeness is discord , conflict within , lack of conscience.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats far too deep for me. I don't honestly know what it means to be Holy in the first place. Its a word used extensively by Christians but I don't actually know what it means to you.
However since the definition of sin seems to be 'a transgression against Gods wishes' surely the best thing to do would be to stop people from sinning. Why not simply put everyone straight in heaven?

However since the definition of sin seems to be 'a transgression against Gods wishes' surely the best thing to do would be to stop people from sinning. Why not simply put everyone straight in heaven?
WHITEY

DOOH! And how might they get in. Holiness repels sin remember. In any case why not start now. How is God going to go about stopping people sinning?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't have much of an "emotional" brain which might explain why I am so pro-science and a good computer programmer and maybe not so good at relationships.

[b]I may instead of smacking my son(if I am a loving father ) release that anger and pain on to myself.
I do that but also know exactly why I do it and do not see how that would apply to God. ...[text shortened]...
I still don't get how this translates into the crucifixion. I really don't get it.[/b]

I still don't get how this translates into the crucifixion. I really don't get it. WHITEY

I didn't ask you that. Answer the question without thinking so much. you go on to Z before going through A, B, C