Righting wrongs

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I know that many people see all sins as being a payment owed to God (despite him not being the only one to suffer, if he does at all), and thus they see Jesus as a settlement of that payment.
However, I am asking about a different concept.
In other threads I have asked why we suffer and who is to blame, and why God created a world with suffering and ...[text shortened]... e that concept and see if anyone can explain it to me, or whether it simply doesn't make sense.

In other threads I have asked why we suffer and who is to blame, and why God created a world with suffering and continues to allows it to take place, and several posters seemed to be of the opinion that somehow Jesus balances out that suffering and thus makes it go away (thus excusing God).

Can you expand on this?

I don't know in what way Jesus might be perceived as "balancing out suffering".

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not certain what you mean there. Do you mean that when a 5 year old girl is murdered she is to blame? Or am I misunderstanding you?

She is not to blame, but her 'whole being' is somehow in balance when she is murdered. There are no accidents. And I've seen the most loveliest people die in my life which makes me think that such great people have something better waiting for them than the suffering of this world. (just a theory)

Originally posted by menace71
Have your own thoughts on the issue G75
Christ in the end will right all of the wrongs I believe.




Manny

My thoughts are irrelevent..Lol. That's my Think Of One impersonation? Sorry. Anyway I totally agree with this very fine explination. If you don't like them don't read them. But you should as nothing here is not said in the Bible..

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does it answer my questions? If so, can you summarize the main points? I started reading it and the first few bits are not really relevant at all. I don't want to wade through pages and pages just to find out that you were just trying to trick me into reading your material.

Yes it does if you'd read it. And it's very short so you should be able to make it...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I know that many people see all sins as being a payment owed to God (despite him not being the only one to suffer, if he does at all), and thus they see Jesus as a settlement of that payment.
However, I am asking about a different concept.
In other threads I have asked why we suffer and who is to blame, and why God created a world with suffering and ...[text shortened]... e that concept and see if anyone can explain it to me, or whether it simply doesn't make sense.

...why we suffer and who is to blame...
I assume that you are referencing general suffering, as opposed to that which is a direct result of wrong action, either agent(s) on agent(s) or self-inflicted stupidity. If this is the case, please provide a specific example of general suffering which you consider to be universal.

...why God created a world with suffering...
He didn't.

...and continues to allows it to take place...
The suffering or the world's continuation? Let's assume that the options are 'world continuing with suffering' and 'all suffering ends, but world does, too.' Which of the two is preferred, in your book?

...several posters seemed to be of the opinion that somehow Jesus balances out that suffering and thus makes it go away (thus excusing God).
If I understand the concept aright, it is emphatically unbiblical. Additionally, one cannot have a lower standard higher than the standard upon which it is based without making the entire proposition nonsensical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it ever possible to right a wrong?
This keeps coming up in this forum in the context that Jesus somehow rights the wrong of our suffering.
It also comes up in the context of justice ie punishment for wrongs somehow fixes things.
It has always been my opinion that preventing a wrong is better than any form of compensation. What do other people think?

So if I shoot you dead, how can I right that wrong? I could then live an error free life in theory, but does that make up for what I did to you? Nope.

This is what serperates Christianity from the other religions. The other religions of the world basically have the premise that if your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds then you get into heaven as if somehow your good makes up for your bad deeds. However, as the above scenerio indicates, there is no deed that can be done to make up for someone murdering you. By all rights you should be in jail or worse no matter how "good" you are before or after the fact.

From a Christian perspective, the good that we do comes from God whether it be from listening to his word or the law written in our hearts. We simply agree to do the right thing or we can disagree and do our own thing. Somehow people think if the do the right thing or the decent thing we somehow deserve a pat on the back. It is like being on trial for your murder and pleading guilty to the charge but then bringing in character witnesses to tell the court what a good person you are. The problem is, the other good deeds is not why you are in court. No one is going to pat you on the back for them....except maybe yourself. That is why Christ came. He assumed the guilt for us and took our punishment. The way I picure it is that death took Christ but had no right to do so because he was without sin. Therefore, death owed a debt to him and this debt is our being acquited of all wrong doing. This rule of substitution is further symbalized when the people were allowed to choose one man to be set free once Christ was apprehended. They then chose the guilty Barnabas instead of the innocent Christ.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you expand on this?

I don't know in what way Jesus might be perceived as "balancing out suffering".

Neither do I, which is was the point of the thread. However, other people have claimed it to be so.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I assume that you are referencing general suffering, as opposed to that which is a direct result of wrong action, either agent(s) on agent(s) or self-inflicted stupidity. If this is the case, please provide a specific example of general suffering which you consider to be universal.

I don't know if there is any specific example of suffering that is universal. After all, what could an aborted fetus suffer? However, I fail to see what the relevance is. My point is that suffering is more or less universal, regardless of whether there is a single example that is so.
It may be helpful to give an example of suffering that is near universal ie the suffering caused by disease, lets say the common cold.

The suffering or the world's continuation? Let's assume that the options are 'world continuing with suffering' and 'all suffering ends, but world does, too.' Which of the two is preferred, in your book?
It is quite obvious. But are those the options? If so why?

If I understand the concept aright, it is emphatically unbiblical.
Thanks.

Additionally, one cannot have a lower standard higher than the standard upon which it is based without making the entire proposition nonsensical.
Not sure what you mean here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know if there is any specific example of suffering that is universal. After all, what could an aborted fetus suffer? However, I fail to see what the relevance is. My point is that suffering is more or less universal, regardless of whether there is a single example that is so.
It may be helpful to give an example of suffering that is near universa ...[text shortened]... ased without making the entire proposition nonsensical.
Not sure what you mean here.[/b]

lets say the common cold.
So, in short, pain?

It is quite obvious. But are those the options? If so why?
Not saying those are the only options. Simply attempting to get some type of barometer on what you hold sacred.

Not sure what you mean here.
If God is the standard--- and we are arguing from the position that He is--- we cannot declare to have a rock bigger than He can pick up.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, in short, pain?

As an example, yes. But it is not the only source of suffering.

If God is the standard--- and we are arguing from the position that He is--- we cannot declare to have a rock bigger than He can pick up.
I am still not sure what you are getting at.