Originally posted by twhitehead...and the purpose of punishing the criminal is to educate him , yes? If the fine is not paid then the cost of the crime is not known and no learning can come from it. However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is and how it damages our realtionship with God. In the bargain we also learn something about God's character (holiness) and the extent to which he will go (death) to get us back ( we see his compassion).
Because the whole purpose of a fine is to punish the criminal. Its purpose is not: 'to be paid'. If the judge pays the fine then he is achieving nothing while hurting himself for no reason in the process.
As I said, its just stupid.
If you then take the analogy one step further and imagine the judge is the criminal's dad (I know that would be unethical) then it takes on a new meaning. The judge would be able to demonstrate his love for his son , whilst also upholding the law and respecting justice.
I don't see anything stupid about it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat good is an analogy if it only makes sense when the original problem must be used as an analogy to explain the analogy. ---whitey---
My 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.
[b]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 carrie ...[text shortened]... n it still doesn't make sense because the key issue simply does not apply in the analogy.
I didn't realise there was an "analogy rule book" concerning what one may or may not say. Don't you think you are being a bit precious about this?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI never said you couldn't do it, I merely said that there is no point giving an analogy if it serves no purpose.
What good is an analogy if it only makes sense when the original problem must be used as an analogy to explain the analogy. ---whitey---
I didn't realise there was an "analogy rule book" concerning what one may or may not say. Don't you think you are being a bit precious about this?
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat nonsense. The cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway.
...and the purpose of punishing the criminal is to educate him , yes? If the fine is not paid then the cost of the crime is not known and no learning can come from it.
However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is and how it damages our realtionship with God.
Again, instead of answering via the analogy you are going back to the original. A sure sign that your analogy simply did not work and was useless as far as explaining the problem is concerned.
In the bargain we also learn something about God's character (holiness) and the extent to which he will go (death) to get us back ( we see his compassion).
Except of course he didn't die (except maybe by some analogy of the word), didn't get all of us back etc etc, and for the more intelligent of us, didn't get his point across anyway, he just ended up looking like a judge who pays the fines of criminals which makes no sense to me.
If you then take the analogy one step further and imagine the judge is the criminal's dad (I know that would be unethical) then it takes on a new meaning. The judge would be able to demonstrate his love for his son , whilst also upholding the law and respecting justice.
Implying that God is subject to a law higher than himself.
I don't see anything stupid about it.
Thats because you don't seem to understand the purpose of a fine or the criminal justice system in general. And you needed to use God and a father child relationship as an analogy to try to explain it. But yet again, the analogy is not suitable because the situation is different, and thus the question is not answered.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway. -WHITEY--
What nonsense. The cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway.
[b]However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is an ...[text shortened]... not suitable because the situation is different, and thus the question is not answered.
I agree entirely my dear fellow. However , this is where one needs to relate the analogy back to the cross. Christ's death reminds us of the gravity of our sin and what it means to God (and what we mean to him) There is no greater price christ could have paid , do you agree?
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, instead of answering via the analogy you are going back to the original. A sure sign that your analogy simply did not work and was useless as far as explaining the problem is concerned. --WHITEY--
What nonsense. The cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway.
[b]However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is an ...[text shortened]... not suitable because the situation is different, and thus the question is not answered.
Ok , let's leave the analogy behind then . It's obviously lost on you anyhow. It was meant to work in the sense that a debt was being paid on behalf of someone who was neevr going to be able to pay it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadImplying that God is subject to a law higher than himself. --WHITEY--
What nonsense. The cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway.
[b]However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is an ...[text shortened]... not suitable because the situation is different, and thus the question is not answered.
There is no reason to imply this at all. God and moral law are one and the same. You are just looking for flaws and ...surprise ..surprise...you are finding them.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the bargain we also learn something about God's character (holiness) and the extent to which he will go (death) to get us back ( we see his compassion). KM-----
What nonsense. The cost of a crime can be know without a fine being paid and often has no real relationship to the fine anyway. A fine is a form of punishment and not a valuation of the crime. Many crimes cant be valued in monetary terms anyway.
[b]However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is an not suitable because the situation is different, and thus the question is not answered.
Except of course he didn't die (except maybe by some analogy of the word), didn't get all of us back etc etc, and for the more intelligent of us, didn't get his point across anyway, he just ended up looking like a judge who pays the fines of criminals which makes no sense to me.---WHITEY----
RESPONSE-----
Oh he died alright , infact it was worse than death because he took all of our sin upon his shoulders as well. He was dead. The romans would have made sure of that.
He may not win all of us back. If you are too "intelligent" to see that the giving of one's very self or life is the ultimate act of love then maybe you will miss out. He got his point across but the rest is up to us. This is the God who walks through shame , humiliation , extreme physical suffering and death to try and reach your heart. On top of this he says " any badness within you I take upon myself to set you free , I will swap your badness for my goodness" . How many times would you like him to die before he has done enough? The problem is that if you don't get it the first time is there any greater chance you will get it after 100 deaths? Stop thinking like a machine and feel it like a human being.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe purpose of punishing the criminal is to deter other criminals and to train - not educate - the criminal. It's basic psychology. Punishment can be used to modify behavior.
...and the purpose of punishing the criminal is to educate him , yes? If the fine is not paid then the cost of the crime is not known and no learning can come from it. However , if we see the cost to God of our sin (via Jesus's sacrifice) then we learn about what sin is and how it damages our realtionship with God. In the bargain we also learn somethin ...[text shortened]... lst also upholding the law and respecting justice.
I don't see anything stupid about it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI still claim that the analogy does not demonstrate your stated aims and thus as an analogy is totally useless. Or possibly worse than useless as it highlights the problem even further rather than explaining it.
Ok , let's leave the analogy behind then . It's obviously lost on you anyhow. It was meant to work in the sense that a debt was being paid on behalf of someone who was neevr going to be able to pay it.
I still do not understand how you translate my sin into a debt owed. I did not buy nor steal the sin. If I am to be punished for my sin then it makes no sense for someone else to be punished on my behalf. God hurting himself simply to highlight how grievous my sin was is the best explanation you have come up with so far, but it does not amount to Jesus 'paying for our sins' or all the other things that are used to describe the crucifixion. Why make it so complicated, why don't Christians just say up-front that Jesus was crucified to show us how seriously he takes it? Is it that most Christians are intentionally deceptive or is it that the do not understand the real reasons? And why did it take you (who does understand it) so long to explain? Instead you start off with an analogy which does not work at all. Why do I get the feeling that Christians are always trying to bury questions in layers of poor analogy and loosely defined words rather than trying to actually answer them?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's easy. Taking the "sin" on his shoulders was a metaphor. Jesus is giving the example of humility and tolerance in a ultra-exagerated way and is saying "look at me, i'm sacrificing in huge pain to try to give you an example, can't you just behave a little better?"
I still claim that the analogy does [b]not demonstrate your stated aims and thus as an analogy is totally useless. Or possibly worse than useless as it highlights the problem even further rather than explaining it.
I still do not understand how you translate my sin into a debt owed. I did not buy nor steal the sin. If I am to be punished for my sin ...[text shortened]... layers of poor analogy and loosely defined words rather than trying to actually answer them?[/b]
Originally posted by serigadoSo why cant Christians come out and say that straight away instead of making outrageous claims about Jesus actually 'paying for our sins'.
It's easy. Taking the "sin" on his shoulders was a metaphor. Jesus is giving the example of humility and tolerance in a ultra-exagerated way and is saying "look at me, i'm sacrificing in huge pain to try to give you an example, can't you just behave a little better?"
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do I get the feeling that Christians are always trying to bury questions in layers of poor analogy and loosely defined words rather than trying to actually answer them?---whitehead---
I still claim that the analogy does [b]not demonstrate your stated aims and thus as an analogy is totally useless. Or possibly worse than useless as it highlights the problem even further rather than explaining it.
I still do not understand how you translate my sin into a debt owed. I did not buy nor steal the sin. If I am to be punished for my sin ...[text shortened]... layers of poor analogy and loosely defined words rather than trying to actually answer them?[/b]
Because you are suffering from mild paranoia