Originally posted by Paul DiracDo you have children?
You know, if in the future I am ever obligated to take the pro side in a debate called "Does the Tooth Fairy answer petitionary prayer?", I could just copy & paste your answers, and then replace God/Christ with Tooth Fairy, and voila!.
You kindly extended an invitation to me to come over to your side. I return the favor. Sometime when you are ...[text shortened]... well) make for your deity. Come on over to the waters of skepticism, Darfius. The water is fine.
Originally posted by Paul DiracGod is not immune to anger. Constantly being doubted is enough to make anyone angry.
Probably not, but then I don't have access to an infinite and perfect Heavenly repository of answers like you would claim you do.
You ask for God to be just, unjust, loving, hateful, distant, near, real, fake, weak and powerful at the same time. Is it any wonder you believe God to be impossible? The very premises of your god are impossible!
Originally posted by Paul DiracI can't find a direct quote, but I can make logical assumptions based on your questions and statements.
When you have time, would you please quote Paul Dirac asking for God to be those five things?
You find hell to be unfair. What exactly should be the punishment for murderers then?
You want Him to value some people's free will over others. How is that not hateful?
You want Him to exist (with the aforementioned attributes) but you aren't willing to change your life to please Him. You want Him to be near enough to give you eternal life, but distant enough not to have to do as He asks.
It would seem that with all of the impossible attributes you want Him to have, you both want Him to be real (for comfort) yet not real (for another level of comfort).
You want Him to answer any prayer we ask. In other words, you want Him to bow to our will whenever we say, no matter if it fits in to His perfect will. Wouldn't that make Him weak?
You find hell to be unfair. What exactly should be the punishment for murderers then?
Let me use a specific example to give you an idea. Your God, presuming He exists, knows whether O.J. Simpson committed homicide. You may recall that the criminal jury declared him “not guilty,” while the civil jury declared him “guilty.” One of those juries came to the wrong conclusion about what really happened. But that need never happen again in all of history, Darfius, for you could petition your God to speak to jurors and tell them the true facts. The court could then sentence the true murderers to life in prison, or to capital punishment. But sentence them to an eternity of burning in Hell? I think that would be unjust. Do you honestly believe that even Adolph Hitler deserves to be tortured forever?
You want Him to value some people's free will over others. How is that not hateful?
Ironically, the example of mine that you are referencing is one where I was asking that He favor the free will of life-loving Christians, such as you surely consider yourself to be, over the free will of nineteen hating non-Christians. Do you not trust Him to intervene in such a way as to optimize the situation, from the point of view of goodness?
You want Him to exist (with the aforementioned attributes) but you aren't willing to change your life to please Him. You want Him to be near enough to give you eternal life, but distant enough not to have to do as He asks.
Au contraire. I do not seek eternal life. I think it would be boring. Now you will say that nobody gets bored in the eternity of Heaven. But think about that. If you don’t get bored after a thousand--nay a billion--years in Heaven, then you are something much different than you are here on Earth. But that means that the ‘you’ that is rewarded in Heaven is drastically different than the ‘you’ that did the right things on Earth (e.g. accepting Jesus as your savior) in order to get to Heaven. Where is the fairness or sense in that?
It would seem that with all of the impossible attributes you want Him to have, you both want Him to be real (for comfort) yet not real (for another level of comfort).
I would gladly settle for Him to be real enough to reliably communicate His thoughts to me. Failing that, I would grudgingly settle for him to reliably communicate His thoughts to you, so that you can pass them on to me. But you have already nixed that process by quoting the Bible to the effect that He refuses to be tested.
You want Him to answer any prayer we ask. In other words, you want Him to bow to our will whenever we say, no matter if it fits in to His perfect will. Wouldn't that make Him weak?
In connection with your last question, let me ask you something. When the president forgets to end his speech with “God bless America,” does God proceed to bless this country less than He would have if the president had remembered to say that?
Let me use a specific example to give you an idea. Your God, presuming He exists, knows whether O.J. Simpson committed homicide. You may recall that the criminal jury declared him “not guilty,” while the civil jury declared him “guilty.” One of those juries came to the wrong conclusion about what really happened. But that need never happen again in all of history, Darfius, for you could petition your God to speak to jurors and tell them the true facts. The court could then sentence the true murderers to life in prison, or to capital punishment. But sentence them to an eternity of burning in Hell? I think that would be unjust. Do you honestly believe that even Adolph Hitler deserves to be tortured forever?
I think you have the misconception that what we "feel" about things determines there existence. I do not relish the thought of anyone suffering forever, but apparently that is what is necessary. Earth is a test. By a perfect God. By a loving, perfect God. That means we get plenty of chances to pass and He grades on a curve. It's really difficult to fail the test. For instance, I'm showing you my paper right now and you're denying it not because you don't want the answers, but because you dislike my handwriting.
Ironically, the example of mine that you are referencing is one where I was asking that He favor the free will of life-loving Christians, such as you surely consider yourself to be, over the free will of nineteen hating non-Christians. Do you not trust Him to intervene in such a way as to optimize the situation, from the point of view of goodness?
What is more good. Saving someone's earthly life which is just a place for testing (which they already passed) or respecting everyone's free will?
Au contraire. I do not seek eternal life. I think it would be boring. Now you will say that nobody gets bored in the eternity of Heaven. But think about that. If you don’t get bored after a thousand--nay a billion--years in Heaven, then you are something much different than you are here on Earth. But that means that the ‘you’ that is rewarded in Heaven is drastically different than the ‘you’ that did the right things on Earth (e.g. accepting Jesus as your savior) in order to get to Heaven. Where is the fairness or sense in that?
God does not take away something good to replace it with something worse (unless of course we ask Him to). The me in Heaven will be wiser and happier than here. Is that not fair or sensible? It's a reward for being faithful.
I would gladly settle for Him to be real enough to reliably communicate His thoughts to me. Failing that, I would grudgingly settle for him to reliably communicate His thoughts to you, so that you can pass them on to me. But you have already nixed that process by quoting the Bible to the effect that He refuses to be tested.
He sent His thoughts to others to communicate them to you in the Bible. Does that count? If not, why?
In connection with your last question, let me ask you something. When the president forgets to end his speech with “God bless America,” does God proceed to bless this country less than He would have if the president had remembered to say that?
No. But then again, "God bless America" isn't a petitionary prayer. It's an arrogant demand. And what if it is God's plan to bless America less? Petitionary prayers should always end with "Your will be done." as my Lord Jesus showed us in the Lord's Prayer.
Originally posted by DarfiusI actually took some time to look in the Synoptic Gospels for the descriptions of the Crucifixion. I can't find any support there for most of Darfius' descriptions, to wit:
Jesus was mocked publically in front of His own people. He was chosen to be killed over a murderering psychotic. He was flogged with whips with embedded glass until near death. He was forced to carry a heavy wooden beam over his destroye ...[text shortened]... w His love for us. He's not the distant gods of other religions.
Jesus was mocked publically in front of His own people
The only public mocking I can find is when he was on the Cross and that was done BY his own people. He was mocked by the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers, but neither of those was in public.
He was chosen to be killed over a murderering psychotic.
Barbabbas is described as someone who took part in an insurrection, in which murder was committed. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19. That would make him more of a revolutionary than a psychotic.
He was flogged with whips with embedded glass until near death.
The Gospels say merely he was scrouged; there is no mention of embedded glass (sounds more like Hollywood) and he was clearly not near death. John has the scrouging before Pilate questions him and Jesus responds to his questions lucidly.
He was forced to carry a heavy wooden beam over his destroyed back.
This is clearly wrong; Simon the Cyrene was forced by the Romans to carry the cross Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; nowhere do the Gospels say Jesus EVER carried the Cross.
He was nailed through the median nerve (and subsequently rubbed it everytime He moved on the cross)
None of the Gospels say Jesus was nailed to the Cross in the Crucifixion stories and it is disputed whether this was standard Roman practice; prisoners could have been simply bound. Obviously, nothing is said about the median nerve.
And suffocated
The Gospels say Jesus surrendered his soul to God after only nine hours; this is remarkably quickly for a crucified person to die and the Roman soldiers didn't believe he was dead. This suggest Jesus actually committed suicide to fulfill the prophecy.
Two observations:
Originally posted by no1marauder
Barbabbas is described as someone who took part in an insurrection, in which murder was committed. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19. That would make him more of a revolutionary than a psychotic.
Some of the ancient authorities for St Matthew read 'Jesus Barabbas.'
Do you know what the Aramaic Barabbas means in English? Son of the Father.
That's right, some ancient sources read, 'Jesus Son of the Father' was set free.
Isn't that a pickle?
This is clearly wrong; Simon the Cyrene was forced by the Romans to carry the cross Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; nowhere do the Gospels say Jesus EVER carried the Cross.
I'll add St Luke 23:26.
I'll have to confess that, having played many a Station of the Cross in the
Roman Church, I was somewhat dismayed to discover recently that the reports
that Jesus fell (three times) while carrying His Cross are entirely apocryphal.
I never noticed that is very clear that Simon of Cyrene carried the Cross from
the beginning. This is in complete contradiction with St John's account at 19:17,
where it says that Jesus was 'carrying the Cross himself....'
Just like the incorrect dating of the Crucifixion in St John (on the day before
the Passover meal), there is a theological explanation for this. In St John's
Gospel (as opposed to the Synoptic ones), Jesus has an air of confidence, that
His Crucixion must happen, that it is the will of the Father (consider the
contrasting Jesus in St Luke's Gospel, wherein Jesus petitions the Father to let
the cup pass over Him in the Garden of Gethesemene. As such, St John rewrites
the story to have Simon edited out so that Jesus carries the Cross for His own
Self -- no one is going to do the work of the Son but the Son.
It is interesting stuff, but irreconcilable. St John tells a better story, but the
Synoptics probably had the history correct.
None of the Gospels say Jesus was nailed to the Cross in the Crucifixion stories...
This is not entirely true. While none of the Crucifixion accounts make reference
to his being nailed to the Cross, the post-Resurrection scenes do. Consider St Luke
24:39-40 which says '"Look at my hands and my feet"...and as He said this, He
showed them His hands and feet.'
Also, there is the famous and powerful passage from St John 20:25b, wherein
Thomas Didymus says 'Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands and put
my finger into the nailmarks...'
I agree that he was most certainly bound to the Cross, I don't see any reason
to disbelieve that His hands were pierced by nails, if for nothing other than
torture value.
Just another 2 cents.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou are correct that John has Jesus carrying the Cross the entire way in direct contradiction to the Matthew, Mark and Luke which have Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross the entire way. A definite contradiction, although I'm sure Darfius will whip something up to explain it.
[b/]Two observations:
Originally posted by no1marauder
Barbabbas is described as someone who took part in an insurrection, in which murder was committed. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19. That would make him more of a revolutionary than a p ...[text shortened]... ng other than
torture value.
Just another 2 cents.
Nemesio
I was aware there were post-Resurrection references to Jesus' wounds in his hands (not wrists; can the Greek word mean either?) but it is not mentioned in the Crucifixion stories themselves. There seems to be considerable scholarly debate as to whether the Romans used nails through the wrists; only one crucified skeleton has ever been recovered and he was not nailed through the hands or wrist at all; only through the heel. Still it would seem an odd thing to make up although the showing of the wounds does strengthen the Resurrection story.
