Originally posted by knightmeisterSo sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? You kill someone, you are then tainted with evil, Jesus then takes that taint and you become clean, as a result of taking that taint Jesus suffers? I am sort of seeing what you are saying but I honestly cant see how sin can be a substance.
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 cou ...[text shortened]... g your dirty oil to the dump and getting some new oil in exchange. The purpose is the exchange.
When someone kills someone, the only reason we label that person evil - sinful etc is because 1) their past contains a sinful act and 2) they have proved that they are capable of sinful acts and thus may repeat the offense. But I fail to see that the person actually has some property in them called 'evil taint' and having it transferable just doesn't make sense to me. If I have evil tendencies then why not simply remove them? Why not simply prevent me from acting on them? Why must Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? WHITEY
So sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? You kill someone, you are then tainted with evil, Jesus then takes that taint and you become clean, as a result of taking that taint Jesus suffers? I am sort of seeing what you are saying but I honestly cant see how sin can be a substance.
When someone kills someone, the only reas ...[text shortened]... ust Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
You are getting closer. This is definitely part of it. Evil /sin/badness (ESB) is a spiritual reality. We have them as a "substance" living within us (eg like black liquid in suspension in water). For christians sin is not just conceptual, it's more than that. ESB means that we are partly aligned to the enemy and under his control. Jesus is also a presence within us and around us so inviting Jesus to wash our sin away really is like having a spiritual blood transfusion if you like. It's not just a judicial concept
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut I fail to see that the person actually has some property in them called 'evil taint WHITEY
So sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? You kill someone, you are then tainted with evil, Jesus then takes that taint and you become clean, as a result of taking that taint Jesus suffers? I am sort of seeing what you are saying but I honestly cant see how sin can be a substance.
When someone kills someone, the only reas ...[text shortened]... ust Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
But there must be something driving them to do what they do? What we do is always on some level a reflection of a deeper reality within us.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I have evil tendencies then why not simply remove them? Why not simply prevent me from acting on them? WHITEY
So sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? You kill someone, you are then tainted with evil, Jesus then takes that taint and you become clean, as a result of taking that taint Jesus suffers? I am sort of seeing what you are saying but I honestly cant see how sin can be a substance.
When someone kills someone, the only reas ...[text shortened]... ust Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
And what would God "removing" your evil tendencies actually look like? How would that happen ? What would it feel like? If God did remove your evil tendencies then presumably he would replace them with something else? It would also mean that God's holiness would have to come into contact with your ESB which would be repellant for him.So some resolution of the violent tension between Good and ESB would be needed. (the cross)
Why not simply prevent me from acting on them? ------Quite often he does if we let him but sometimes we don't listen and go our own way . Don't forget that there is still the question of choice and free will . God could maybe call the whole thing off at any point and stop us all sinning but then we would not be sentient , choosing beings capable of giving and receiving love freely of our own will. In Jesus we get the chance to freely surrender to him in love.
In a way he is trying all the time to prevent us from sinning and doing ESB . He can do it but he needs to get inside us and do some repair work and give us the power we need to fight ESB. But in order to prevent us from ESB he needs our co-operation. It's no good saying why doesn't God stop me from sinning , if one is not prepared to give God control of your life. A good dentist can easily fix a filing but not if the patient doesn't open his mouth! The patient then says "why don't you just fix my teeth??!!" The dentist says "I would if I could see them!"
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy must Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me. WHITEY
So sin / badness / evil is a substance of some sort that is transferable? You kill someone, you are then tainted with evil, Jesus then takes that taint and you become clean, as a result of taking that taint Jesus suffers? I am sort of seeing what you are saying but I honestly cant see how sin can be a substance.
When someone kills someone, the only reas ust Jesus suffer in order for my tendencies to change? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
It won't make full sense until the Holy Spirit reveals to you what Jesus has done and why but I think part of the answer is to do with what happens when Holiness (good) and evil sin badness (ESB) get together. Holiness wants to destroy ESB to condemn it and separate itself from it . There's real violence here because ESB and Holiness are NOT happy bedfellows. If God just came to us in his pure glory he would burn us up like radiation . We would suffer. So in a way Jesus (our radiation suit) takes the "heat" for us and suffers in our place. So for your tendencies to change God has to get near you to excahnge your ESB for his holiness. This is going to create problems. Jesus is the solution to that problem.
Footnote-
I think that Jesus's suffering is also about God entering into physical pain and death as well but the other aspect is that Jesus becomes condemned and separated from god on the cross. This is probably the greater suffering (Abba , why have you forsaken me ?) because that point all our ESB is being placed upon Christ. Christ becomes separate from God with all this ESB on him.
The big question is if God is to do anything about our ESB then his holiness has to enter into our ESB and penetrate it (like a dentist entering your mouth) So what does it mean for God to enter into our ESB ? What does it loook like? I'll give you three guesses.
It looks like I will never fully understand it and certainly do not agree with the bits I sort of understand so far. But then the whole concept of original sin, inheritable sin and 'sin nature' never did sit well with me.
So, do you think that your view of it all are clear and obvious or did you have to do some intense studying to understand it.
Do you think that other Christians have the same view or are there many different interpretations out there?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut then the whole concept of original sin, inheritable sin and 'sin nature' never did sit well with me. WHITEY
It looks like I will never fully understand it and certainly do not agree with the bits I sort of understand so far. But then the whole concept of original sin, inheritable sin and 'sin nature' never did sit well with me.
So, do you think that your view of it all are clear and obvious or did you have to do some intense studying to understand it.
Do yo ...[text shortened]... hat other Christians have the same view or are there many different interpretations out there?
Of course it doesn't . Coming to Christ is a messy and uncomfortable business. God plans to convict us and take our pride and self righteousness away and it might well hurt (our pride at least) . Christian faith is about going through a process of dying and surrender and we won't want to do it. CS lewis talk about being "cornered" by God. When you realise who God is part of you will be overjoyed and another part of you (that you realise has to die) will be in despair and will wish you hadn't found him.
Don't worry about your ESB though , God knows about it and understands. To him you are incredibly beautiful. I personally subscribe to the theology of original righteousness not sin because at our foundations we are created christ like and are a joy to God , the problem is that something got in the way. In a way our "sinful nature" is only part of the story because we are much more than that. Why do you think God loves us so much? He cannot love that which is utterly full of ESB.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, do you think that your view of it all are clear and obvious or did you have to do some intense studying to understand it.
It looks like I will never fully understand it and certainly do not agree with the bits I sort of understand so far. But then the whole concept of original sin, inheritable sin and 'sin nature' never did sit well with me.
So, do you think that your view of it all are clear and obvious or did you have to do some intense studying to understand it.
Do yo ...[text shortened]... hat other Christians have the same view or are there many different interpretations out there?
Do you think that other Christians have the same view or are there many different interpretations out there? WHITEY
I think my view is pretty mainstream (apart from the original righteousness idea) , I didn't study much , a lot just came as a gift i guess + talking to people. There are many interpretations out there , most of which move away from redemption thro' faith in Christ alone and move on to salvation by works. These interpretations usually trap people in fear and guilt because they never know if their works are quite "good enough" .
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet me get this right. Analogies are good ways of arguing a position if you're "preaching to the converted"?
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.
ANYTHING is a good argument if the audience wants to believe you.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo , there are three positions one can take when presented with an analogy as an argument
Let me get this right. Analogies are good ways of arguing a position if you're "preaching to the converted"?
ANYTHING is a good argument if the audience wants to believe you.
a) to be blind to the analogy's faults and just go along with whatever it says because you already are converted anyway
b) to be receptive to the analogy and read it in the spirit it was intended whilst also aware of it's shortcomings
OR c) to have made your mind up that you will hunt out the meerest fault in the analogy and use it as a way to discredit the argument.
You fall into catagory c) , being receptive is b)
Even the greatest analogy in the world will not work if someone is determined not to hear the argument. However , being receptive does not mean switching your brain off it just means giving something a fair chance.
It's like this . You go to see a play , you think to yourself if this could be a decent play so I will allow the actors to take me there and see what happens. Of course if you go with that attitude " these actors are naff and I bet this play will be boring" then you will spend most of the night noticing when the actors make mistakes in their lines or having your eyes drawn to where the set wasn't painted properly.
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy problem with your analogies is that several of the analogies you have used in the past, have actually argued against your position but you want the reader (me) to over look that.
No , there are three positions one can take when presented with an analogy as an argument
a) to be blind to the analogy's faults and just go along with whatever it says because you already are converted anyway
b) to be receptive to the analogy and read it in the spirit it was intended whilst also aware of it's shortcomings
OR c) to have made ...[text shortened]... istakes in their lines or having your eyes drawn to where the set wasn't painted properly.
The purpose of an analogy is to help explain something, if it fails completely to address the issue in question then it is useless as an analogy.
For example: I ask "why did Jesus get punished for other peoples sin"
Answer: As an analogy, suppose a judge is punished for the sin of a criminal he is judging.
Now anyone can see that a judge paying a criminals fines for him is just stupid, so it doesn't really answer the central question at all. It merely tries to hide the problem in layers of analogy in the hope that the questioner will think the question has been answered when really it hasn't.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe judge analogy was meant to illustrate that the criminal is in no position to pay the fine and has not the funds ( presumably the judge is loaded) so he is reliant on some help. The judge is meant to represent God who pays our fines on our behalf becasue we are unable to bear the cost. The fine needs to be paid.
My problem with your analogies is that several of the analogies you have used in the past, have actually argued against your position but you want the reader (me) to over look that.
The purpose of an analogy is to help explain something, if it fails completely to address the issue in question then it is useless as an analogy.
For example: I ask "why did ...[text shortened]... he hope that the questioner will think the question has been answered when really it hasn't.
This doesn't fully explain the question at all but it's a start. But then what you are asking is a very hard question to answer if you don't know who Jesus is.
Another way of thinking about it is that the judge is kind of carrying the burden of the criminal and is so making himself responsible for a crime he did not commit. In terms of God , He carries partial rsponsibility because he created us. And like any good father he doesn't just walk away when we foul up but comes and bails us out. (or pays our fine for us).
You may then go on to say that this judge is not the criminal's father (as that would be inappropriate ) but to me that would be pedantic.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow anyone can see that a judge paying a criminals fines for him is just stupid -------------whitey----
My problem with your analogies is that several of the analogies you have used in the past, have actually argued against your position but you want the reader (me) to over look that.
The purpose of an analogy is to help explain something, if it fails completely to address the issue in question then it is useless as an analogy.
For example: I ask "why did ...[text shortened]... he hope that the questioner will think the question has been answered when really it hasn't.
Why?
Originally posted by knightmeisterwell said
Roman Catholics have a sacrament called, the "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation". It helps solving the problems you speak of. IVAN
It's not a problem to be "solved". Jesus meets us in our shame and brokeness and fear. He doesn't offer us an escape , he meets us as we are and not as we should be.
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy point is that it doesn't answer the question at all and thus fails completely as an analogy. Your excuse of 'analogies aren't perfect' just doesn't work.
This doesn't fully explain the question at all but it's a start. But then what you are asking is a very hard question to answer if you don't know who Jesus is.
Another way of thinking about it is that the judge is kind of carrying the burden of the criminal and is so making himself responsible for a crime he did not commit. In terms of God , He carries partial rsponsibility because he created us. And like any good father he doesn't just walk away when we foul up but comes and bails us out. (or pays our fine for us).
Do you see how you are trying to use the original problem to explain the analogy. What good is an analogy if it only makes sense when the original problem must be used as an analogy to explain the analogy. And even then it still doesn't make sense because the key issue simply does not apply in the analogy.