10 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionIf goodness was on a scale of 1 to 10 where would you place yourself in relation to Jesus?
What you actually mean is that [b]you could not imagine a better person than Jesus and that you could not improve upon the universe.
Your assertions about anyone else are completely false.[/b]
If you are above Him why has not your impact on human history been as powerful as His?
If you are below Him on that scale how is it that you could be relied on to imagine improvements upon Him?
10 May 07
Originally posted by sangfroidYes. According to Christian doctrine, God created Satan. But not as Satan, per se. Satan was originally an archangel by the name of Lucifer who became motivated by pride to defy God and lead a rebellion against Him. When he failed, Satan (Lucifer) and his followers were cast from Heaven.
Did God create Satan then? Why would God create something evil? Is this like the Adam and Eve scenario with the apple?
10 May 07
Originally posted by FleabittenAh yes, heard that story before, just couldn't recall it. Thanks🙂
Yes. According to Christian doctrine, God created Satan. But not as Satan, per se. Satan was originally an archangel by the name of Lucifer who became motivated by pride to defy God and lead a rebellion against Him. When he failed, Satan (Lucifer) and his followers were cast from Heaven.
10 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillRight, so I'm imagining a version of Jesus who does not think it is just to stone an adulteress. This would be a morally better Jesus. See? Easy!
Quite the contrary I mean that YOU amannion (included with me) could not imagine a person better than Jesus Christ.
That's my opinion. But if you think you'd like to try go ahead.
10 May 07
Originally posted by sangfroidNo problem. I'm not a theologian, or even particularly religious, but I remember that one from childhood. I always thought the part about pride being Lucifer's motivation as intersting because I had also been under the impression that to Man alone was the gift of free will given. Therefore, if only Man possessed free will, that would mean angels (i.e. Lucifer) did not. And if Lucifer did not possess free will, how could pride have motivated him to defy God?
Ah yes, heard that story before, just couldn't recall it. Thanks🙂
10 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrRead the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John to see how Jesus
Right, so I'm imagining a version of Jesus who does not think it is just to stone an adulteress. This would be a morally better Jesus. See? Easy!
dealt with the occasion for stoning an adulterous woman.
Have you never read? "He that is without sin among you let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Do you have another example of your improvements on the character of Jesus of Nazareth?
10 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillJesus never doubted the justice of the punishment, but did doubt that anybody present had the moral authority to carry it out. He never claimed that it was not just to kill the adulteress, merely that it was hypocritical of those gathered to punish her.
Read the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John to see how Jesus
dealt with the occasion for stoning an adulterous woman.
Have you never read? [b]"He that is without sin among you let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Do you have another example of your improvements on the character of Jesus of Nazareth?[/b]
11 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrWhereas I think a point was to illustrate the hypocrisy, does Jesus
Jesus never doubted the justice of the punishment, but did doubt that anybody present had the moral authority to carry it out. He never claimed that it was not just to kill the adulteress, merely that it was hypocritical of those gathered to punish her.
in fact comment about the justice of such a punishment?
Pretending for a moment that the story is in fact a literal representation
of some event in Jesus' lifetime, I take the story to be a commentary
on 'second chances;' yes, everyone has sinned, some even severely,
in the sight of the Lord. Some even intended to sin, regardless of what
the Law said. But, in the Lord, even the most severe of sins can be
forgiven; even the most grotesque behavior (through contrition and the
promise of diligence) can be overlooked.
After all, Jesus is believed to have been without sin; He could have thrown
the first stone and been very justified (by His own accounting), but He
did not. I would think that He did not because He believed that such a
punishment was disproporationate to the crime.
Maybe it doesn't, and I am reading too much of the forgiveness which I
think ought to be elemental to all righteous belief systems.
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio, I have never doubted your Jesus was a paragon of virtue.
Whereas I think a point was to illustrate the hypocrisy, does Jesus
in fact comment about the justice of such a punishment?
Pretending for a moment that the story is in fact a literal representation
of some event in Jesus' lifetime, I take the story to be a commentary
on 'second chances;' yes, everyone has sinned, some even severely,
in the ...[text shortened]... forgiveness which I
think ought to be elemental to all righteous belief systems.
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioMaybe he didn't give a hoot about the Law and said things for effect. When you can defy the law of gravity, it must be hard to take a bunch of archaic values seriously.
After all, Jesus is believed to have been without sin; He could have thrown
the first stone and been very justified (by His own accounting), but He
did not. I would think that He did not because He believed that such a
punishment was disproporationate to the crime.
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioIf forgiveness is required to reduce the sentence then the punishment is still just. Jesus could easily have said that the punishment was too severe but that would have contradicted the earlier laws set out by God.
Maybe it doesn't, and I am reading too much of the forgiveness which I
think ought to be elemental to all righteous belief systems.
Nemesio
However I still hold that according to Christian doctrine morals come from God and thus if God wishes it, then it is morally right whether or not we see it as such.
I am an atheist by the way and do not believe that there is such a thing as absolute morals. One of the issues I have with Christians in general is their apparent confusion about what morals really are. Many Christians tend to take it that absolute morals exists and are obvious to all and then proceed to claim that God fits and upholds those morals and then proceed to claim he is the source of the morals as a justification for any apparent violation of what seems obvious as morally correct which turns into a circular argument. I see the same thing when it comes to justice. Christians say "God is Just" then later "Justice is what God decides is just". The fact that Gods actions are not just by my standards is irrelevant.
11 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillWhy is it safe to say that? Like I said, loneliness is a relative feeling. You can't be lonely if you have no conception of there being anything/one else. What does the Bible say about the beginning of time, I always assumed it said something along the lines of In the beginning there was only God. If that's the case then he couldn't possibly lonely for the reason I mentioned above.
Yes, God longed for a counterpart. I think it is safe to say that He was something like lonely as far as we humans can understand it.
11 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrNot only no one present had the moral authority. He did have the moral authority and told the woman to go and sin no more. And a major theme of the gospel of John is that He is God incarnate - "the word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14)
Jesus never doubted the justice of the punishment, but did doubt that anybody present had the moral authority to carry it out. He never claimed that it was not just to kill the adulteress, merely that it was hypocritical of those gathered to punish her.
If Jesus ONLY cared that no one present had the authority to stone her then we should see Jesus Himself stoning the sinful woman to death. It is true that no one else had the moral authority to do so. But He certainly did. And He did not condemn her. Therefore it was not the only point He was making, that only He and no one else had that authority to stone her.
I think the point is found in the passage that He is the light of the world. This means He is the moral light which enlightens the darkened human conscience and leads men and women to repentence.
And through repentence salvation from the power of sin can be dispensed into the sinner. I think it should be evident that His NOT stoning the woman to death proves that He was revealing a higher way of dealing with the sins of man.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
Your attempts to improve upon the moral character of Jesus Christ have not been too impressive to this poster.