Abba not Father....

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 do that but also know exactly why I do it and do not see how that would apply to God. WHITEY

It does in the sense that our sin brings about a reaction like the oil and water thing. Our sin hurts him.

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 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 WHITEY

There is no why. It's just God's nature it's the way he is , the stuff he is made of if you like. God is like a holy fire in which all darkness is consumed. If we went to God without the justifying blood of christ we'd just get burnt up. He can't not be who he is and who he is is pure and holy and hating of everything evil.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It does in the sense that our sin brings about a reaction like the oil and water thing. Our sin hurts him.

But thats my whole point. Pain and our reaction to it are there for a very specific purpose resulting from evolution, so unless God evolved it makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is no why. It's just God's nature it's the way he is , the stuff he is made of if you like.

So at the end of the day, there is no explanation, it just is. Most Christians pretend to understand but don't. They simply take it on faith that that is how it is. All the stories and analogies etc etc are merely there to hide the ignorance. Why didn't you (who seems to be one of the few Christians to admit to the ignorance) simply come out and say that in the beginning? Why go to all the trouble of trying to explain the unexplainable?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So at the end of the day, there is no explanation, it just is. Most Christians pretend to understand but don't. They simply take it on faith that that is how it is. All the stories and analogies etc etc are merely there to hide the ignorance. Why didn't you (who seems to be one of the few Christians to admit to the ignorance) simply come out and say that in the beginning? Why go to all the trouble of trying to explain the unexplainable?

So at the end of the day, there is no explanation, it just is. WHITEY

This is the bit where you need to have bit more self knowledge and realise that that is not what I said. You have taken something from a small subset of the whole debate (eg - that one cannot say why God is holy , he just is holy) and then turned it round as if I have said that the entire subject of the cross is unexplainable.This is not only mind reading but putting words into my mouth also.

If I am not able to explain why God is holy how does that shutdown other aspects of the debate? The argument can still continue in the form of why might a holy God require a cross or how might sin be dealt with. Maybe what you are looking for is arguments and mental justifications. Christianity in its purest form is a description of a spiritual reality and not an argument. The arguments only lead to eyes being opened. Jesus did not come to say "listen guys , you might find this idea quite appealing , the argument goes like this" ...he came to say " here I am this is the way it is , like it or not , this is reality" . he did not say "I have a cool argument" he said "I AM the TRUTH and the LIFE". No christian is trying ultimately to convince . My ultimate aim is that you will realise that you are standing in the presence of God and always have been without knowing it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But thats my whole point. Pain and our reaction to it are there for a very specific purpose resulting from evolution, so unless God evolved it makes no sense at all.

It's a metaphor!!! A way of describing God. You might as well say that talking about God as our father makes no sense because he has no penis!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So at the end of the day, there is no explanation, it just is. Most Christians pretend to understand but don't. They simply take it on faith that that is how it is. All the stories and analogies etc etc are merely there to hide the ignorance. Why didn't you (who seems to be one of the few Christians to admit to the ignorance) simply come out and say that in the beginning? Why go to all the trouble of trying to explain the unexplainable?

All the stories and analogies etc etc are merely there to hide the ignorance WHITEY

Not at all. There is still much to understand and appreciate but the ultimate question of why is God God cannot be answered because one would have to explain God A in terms of God B , who would then be God.
When you say "there can be no 'before' time " are you being ignorant or realistic?

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean it cannot be known.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is the bit where you need to have bit more self knowledge and realise that that is not what I said. You have taken something from a small subset of the whole debate (eg - that one cannot say why God is holy , he just is holy) and then turned it round as if I have said that the entire subject of the cross is unexplainable.This is not only mind reading but putting words into my mouth also.

It seems there was a bit of miscommunication. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. Your answer I thought was "There is no why".
However it seems that you were answering a question I did not ask ie "why is God Holy?".

So, to get back on track: Is there any reasoning behind the punishment for sin idea? You have given several analogies, none of which explain it for me. ie:
1. The judge analogy fails completely because the judge is shown to be acting contrary to the normal justice system and reasoning behind human laws.
2. The hurt father analogy fails because the reasons why we hurt ourselves as a result of our frustration or punish ourselves in the presence of our children as a teaching aid simply to not translate when applied to God.
For example when I am particularly frustrated I might punch a wall. The purpose behind this is to create some pain inputs to my brain which helps to reduce the effects of the frustration. I just cant see a 'perfect' being suffering from the same problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's a metaphor!!! A way of describing God. You might as well say that talking about God as our father makes no sense because he has no penis!

Metaphors are useless unless there is at least some correlation. You call God your father because either you think he created you (as a biological father might) or you see his relationship to your similar to your relationship between you and your biological father. If however you use the metaphor to try to explain something that simply does not apply or make sense when applied to God then it simply breaks down completely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems there was a bit of miscommunication. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. Your answer I thought was "There is no why".
However it seems that you were answering a question I did not ask ie "why is God Holy?".

So, to ...[text shortened]... problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns.

1. The judge analogy fails completely because the judge is shown to be acting contrary to the normal justice system and reasoning behind human laws. WHITEY

Have you never heard of the bail system and someone paying bail on someone's behalf? I'm also convinced that people have had their fines paid for them also. I also know that fines are often not waived in court since proper consideration to the fact that the weight or gravity of the offence needs to be recognised as such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems there was a bit of miscommunication. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. Your answer I thought was "There is no why".
However it seems that you were answering a question I did not ask ie "why is God Holy?".

So, to ...[text shortened]... problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns.

For example when I am particularly frustrated I might punch a wall. The purpose behind this is to create some pain inputs to my brain which helps to reduce the effects of the frustration. I just cant see a 'perfect' being suffering from the same problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns. WHITEY


You might also punch a wall as an alternative to punching someone instead? A perfect being (ie holy) might have restraint but may also by very virtue of being perfect have a strong reaction against darkness and evil. In a sense it is God's perfect holiness that causes the problem . If he was less perfect he could overlook sin and just say "ho -hum whatever" , but he can't. I admit the analogy is imperfect but I think even if I came up with a half decent one you would still find a way to pick holes in it , because holes are what you are looking for.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems there was a bit of miscommunication. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. Your answer I thought was "There is no why".
However it seems that you were answering a question I did not ask ie "why is God Holy?".

So, to ...[text shortened]... problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns.

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. WHITEY

I can see a way forward here. Let's leave the punishment issue aside for one minute and think of it in a different way. We have sin in us that causes us to be separate from a Holy God, so God needs to solve this somehow. He knows that we cannot reach the levels required to gain holiness of be "clean" in his presence however hard we try (righteousness by works). So his solution is to kind of do a deal and swap his righteousness with our sin. So he kind of takes our sin away from us and swaps it with some of his holiness and righteousness. A bit like a house swap if you like. You could also think of it a bit like that guy in the Green Mile film (tom hanks) when he takes all the rubbish out of that woman and into himself.

So what the cross does is enable God to swap our sin with his righteousness. Our sin then gets placed on christ on the cross who in turn gives us his righteousness in exchange. So instead of us feeling the effects of our darkness christ feels it instead on the cross. He becomes a kind of massive spiritual dumping ground for all our rubbish , but of course he is big enough to take it all and rise again. It's like having an oil change and taking your dirty oil to the dump and getting some new oil in exchange. The purpose is the exchange.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems there was a bit of miscommunication. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the requirement that someone must be punished for each sin even if the person getting punished is not the perpetrator. Your answer I thought was "There is no why".
However it seems that you were answering a question I did not ask ie "why is God Holy?".

So, to ...[text shortened]... problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns.

I just cant see a 'perfect' being suffering from the same problems nor a non biological consciousness having the same thought processes / patterns. WHITEY

Are you saying that if there was a God he would not be just as sentient an as intelligent as us? Do you imagine that if God existed he would be morally neutral and have no understanding of human affairs?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you saying that if there was a God he would not be just as sentient an as intelligent as us? Do you imagine that if God existed he would be morally neutral and have no understanding of human affairs?

No, I think his brain would work differently. I think that when we develop computers with consciousness that unless we deliberately model them on ourselves they will not suffer from the same psychological problems as us. Many of our psychological problems are a direct result of evolution and our particular brain design and not a trait that is necessary for intelligence. In the case in point, if we have time to think about something that makes us angry then we behave very differently and are not likely to hurt ourselves etc. You frequently claim that God is separate from time and knows the future yet reacts to sin as if it has caught him by surprise and makes him so angry he pulls his own hair out. Such behavior is illogical and driven by emotion - hormones etc and only really makes sense when the person in question is a biological being.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I admit the analogy is imperfect but I think even if I came up with a half decent one you would still find a way to pick holes in it , because holes are what you are looking for.

No the analogy is not 'imperfect' it is totally and utterly useless as the key point that you are attempting to explain is not explained by the analogy. I am not looking for holes (mind reader!) I am looking for an understandable explanation - one that you are yet to give.