Question for Christians about Judas

[kaziglu bey]

Hi kaziglu bey,

Happy New Year! I hope you had a great night last night. We did.

Greetings and Happy New Year to you as well. I had a quiet night with my son watching River Monsters, playing with Legos, cleaning his room and reading. Couldn't have been better, if you ask me.

First, my post didn’t demonize them for crucifying Jesus. It didn’t even demonize them.

Perhaps demonize is not the appropriate term. How about cast them in a negative light?

Second, are you saying that those characteristics are to be lauded? Protecting power and station? Greed? Betrayal? Killing out of fear of losing one's position? Mob behavior?

I'm going to have to call Strawman on this one. I didn't say that these were characteristics to be lauded. I said that if these people had not possessed such characteristics, they probably wouldn't have crucified Jesus, thus negating the hope of salvation for believers. Furthermore, since it was supposedly God's plan for Jesus to come here to be a human sacrifice, those people who actually did his dirty work for him were essential in carrying out God's plan. Also, since

He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

God had destined them to do such things in accordance with the pleasure of his will, and they had no choice in the matter. They were merely acting as God's puppets. Furthermore, if God is the Creator, then God created such people with such characteristics so that they would be able to carry out his plan.   It really seems like you are trying to seriously misconstrue what I said.

I don’t really think you’re saying those are ideals that we should applaud, are you? It’s for those types of traits that they would be punished.

No, I am not saying that at all. However, Christians must accept that these things were necessary for their salvation. Where would the Christian be without those responsible for crucifying Jesus? Oh yeah, duh, Christianity wouldn't even exist. No crucifixion=no resurrection=no belief that Jesus Christ died and was risen.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi again kaziglu bey,

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     

The Bible clearly does support free will, that is people making their own decision about their future. You gave some verses that can be confusing I agree, because they bring omniscience into the picture and we don’t really understand omniscience. But let’s look at the Bible as a whole for a minute and what actually happens to the people portrayed there.

There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not. It starts right off from the beginning with Adam and Eve. Regardless of what you may think about the scenario, they had a choice about whether to obey God or not. The people of Israel are given choices about whether to follow God. Abraham was given the choice of whether to sacrifice Isaac or not. Nehemiah had the choice to rebuild the walls or not. David had the choice to marry Bathsheba or not. Mary had the choice to be the mother of Jesus or not. Jesus had the choice to obey his Father’s will or not. Pilate had the choice of whether to crucify Jesus or not. There are obviously many more examples.

All of the people made their own decisions about the future. Some made good decisions and some not.

[kaziglu bey]

hmmn

you're the one who made the assertion that it was trustworthy in its depiction of predestination.

I said no such thing. This is what I said.

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.

I did not say that it's descriptions of no free will were more trustworthy than it's descriptions of free will. I was pointing out the contradiction in what the Bible says about free will.

then you seemed to be saying that it's not trustworthy, but only in those places where it contradicts you.

which is it?

NEITHER! Honestly, I really do not understand why people are having a hard time comprehending what I am saying. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't believe in any of it. The contradictions regarding free will are part of the reason for that.

if it can be trusted, why do you believe it when it asserts predestination, but disbelieve it when it says something else?

if it can't be trusted, then why do you think it's a reliable depiction to christianity in the first place?

Again, I don't believe in the Bible or any gods. It can't be trusted to demonstrate anything meaningful about reality, and I have never once in my history in this forum said that I believe it does. I merely think that the Bible depicts what it depicts, and such depiction is reason enough not to believe.

[kaziglu bey]

Hi again kaziglu bey,

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     

The Bible clearly does support free will,

Except when it doesn't.

that is people making their own decision about their future. You gave some verses that can be confusing I agree, because they bring omniscience into the picture and we don’t really understand omniscience. But let’s look at the Bible as a whole for a minute and what actually happens to the people portrayed there.

Oh yes, let's.

There are many

Many is not all. These three words indicate that you believe there are people in the Bible who did not possess free will. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not. It starts right off from the beginning with Adam and Eve. Regardless of what you may think about the scenario, they had a choice about whether to obey God or not.

Not without knowledge of whether the God they were obeying was Good or Evil. Seeing as he lies to and threatens Adam with death, it doesn't really seem like God is Good.

The people of Israel are given choices about whether to follow God. Abraham was given the choice of whether to sacrifice Isaac or not. Nehemiah had the choice to rebuild the walls or not. David had the choice to marry Bathsheba or not. Mary had the choice to be the mother of Jesus or not. Jesus had the choice to obey his Father’s will or not. Pilate had the choice of whether to crucify Jesus or not. There are obviously many more examples.

are you saying then that Jesus, who (according to some believers anyway) is merely an earthly form of God, had a choice whether or nor to obey himself? And what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death??!?

All of the people made their own decisions about the future. Some made good decisions and some not.

  Except for those that didn't, like those whose hearts he hardened, or those to whom he actually showed himself. You implicitly admit that not ALL of the people made their own decisions with those three words "There are many".

Note: I am going to bed, so please do not mistake my silence as an admission of defeat or unwillingness to respond.

[SimpleCaveman]

Greetings and Happy New Year to you as well. I had a quiet night with my son watching River Monsters, playing with Legos, cleaning his room and reading. Couldn't have been better, if you ask me.

Wonderful! Glad to hear it.

Perhaps demonize is not the appropriate term. How about cast them in a negative light?

Fair enough. It happens.

I said that if these people had not possessed such characteristics, they probably wouldn't have crucified Jesus, thus negating the hope of salvation for believers.

Let’s suppose that the conditional is true. There are problems with that conjecture. First, if those people had not possessed such characteristics, then others would have. There were a lot of people without those characteristics already and he still was crucified. It’s just like the point that others are trying to make about Judas. Regardless of which actual people it was, someone in power would not have liked what Jesus was doing and would have tried to shut him up. Since he would not be shut up, it was inevitable that he would be crucified.

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

It really seems like you are trying to seriously misconstrue what I said.

Not on purpose. No. That’s why I asked it as a question instead of assuming you meant it that way and railing on you. I’ve been on the other end of that too much. And done it too much myself. It’s easy to misconstrue on these forums.

[Azdgari]

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

I thought that salvation was supposedly needed because humans had inherited guilt from Adam & Eve.

[SimpleCaveman]

Note: I am going to bed, so please do not mistake my silence as an admission of defeat or unwillingness to respond.

I would never admit to assuming silence as an admission of defeat. And now that you say that I need to go to bed myself!

Many is not all. These three words indicate that you believe there are people in the Bible who did not possess free will.

No, that’s not what I believe. Careful on the misconstruing. I think it’s a good idea for us to call it quits tonight. I will as soon as I’m done here.

Not without knowledge of whether the God they were obeying was Good or Evil. Seeing as he lies to and threatens Adam with death, it doesn't really seem like God is Good.

Here’s that strawman you mentioned.

are you saying then that Jesus, who (according to some believers anyway) is merely an earthly form of God, had a choice whether or nor to obey himself?

Let me check into this one. I may have typed too fast. My thought was that Jesus was fully human and so could have chosen to not do something that God wanted. However, as you say, Jesus was fully God, so he could not have sinned. But does that mean he doesn’t have free will? I don’t think so. Free will is the ability to make decisions based on intellect and will. Because Jesus is God, he had perfect intellect and perfect will, so his decisions would have been perfect. We have choices because we are not perfect and we do not use our will or intellect perfectly.

It’s like doing a crossword puzzle. I don’t know all the answers, so I have “choices” about what to put in. Sometimes I put in right answers and sometimes wrong answers. If I were much smarter than I am, then I’d know all the right answers and I’d make my choices to put them in. I could put in the wrong answers, but I wouldn’t. It would seem like I do not have free will, but really I would have perfect will.

And what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death??!?

Yea, another one of those pesky strawmen. It’s like a Dr. Who episode.

Except for those that didn't, like those whose hearts he hardened, or those to whom he actually showed himself.

Ah, good points. We’ll get to those tomorrow. For now, please tell me what you mean by the latter? Do you mean that when God showed himself it forced people to a particular way? I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi Azdgari,

Okay, fine. Because it’s you I’ll answer tonight. Then I’m going to bed!

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

I thought that salvation was supposedly needed because humans had inherited guilt from Adam & Eve.

It’s not so much that we inherit guilt. When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice. Because of that loss, our human nature is wounded in its natural powers, without being totally corrupted. Our human nature is now, among other things, inclined toward sin. That inclination toward sin is why we have those characteristics we’ve been discussing.

To assume that no one would have those characteristics we have to assume that we do not have an inclination toward sin. The only way we’d not have the inclination to sin is if we did not lose the original grace of holiness and justice, that is if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. If they had not disobeyed God, then we would not need to be saved.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. Thanks for the question.

Good night!

[Azdgari]

Seems like something that shouldn't have been allowed to be passed down to their offspring.  I guess God wanted us that way after all.

Too bad Jesus went and undid God's plan for (some of) our corruption.

[changeling]

Riley,

Once you figure out that mankind wrote all the speeches of god, then you are left with the realization that god isn't contacting you. He doesn't talk to us, he doesn't show his face. He is absent.

When you realize that he is always absent, it's not too far of a shot to the realization that he is so absent that he doesn't exist.

Something to think about. It would be easier if he would just come on down and say hi or go to hell or something.

Yes Riley, you are absolutely correct.
It would be easier if he would just come on down and go to hell or something. 

[kaziglu bey]

Wonderful! Glad to hear it.

Thanks.

Fair enough. It happens.

indeed. language is a funny thing like that.

Let’s suppose that the conditional is true. There are problems with that conjecture. First, if those people had not possessed such characteristics, then others would have. There were a lot of people without those characteristics already and he still was crucified. It’s just like the point that others are trying to make about Judas. Regardless of which actual people it was, someone in power would not have liked what Jesus was doing and would have tried to shut him up. Since he would not be shut up, it was inevitable that he would be crucified.

I would have to disagree here. You cited several groups that were interested, for one reason or another, in eliminating Jesus. see

Sanhedrin – Out to protect their power and station.
Judas – Greed? Power? As far as he knew it was betrayal, pure and simple.
Pontius Pilate – Fear of Caesar and the Jews.
Roman soldiers – Following orders except those who mocked and ridiculed him.
The mob – probably had no idea of the schemes behind everything. Hailing Jesus as King the week before they too now turned on him.

However, based on these assertions,  I think it would be difficult for you to find anyone OTHER than those you named who would have had the power/influence/authority to order and carry out an execution. Without the Jewish authorities, Roman Authorities, the Mob or Judas, who else would have been interested in or capable of silencing Jesus and what would THEIR motives be?

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

I'm not sure I can agree. According to my Catholic upbringing, we needed salvation because of original sin. You state later that

When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice.

If eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve "like God", and characteristics such as greed and lust for power exist because of their "fall",  it would be reasonable to conclude that God possesses the characteristics of greed and lust for power. Isn't that what God ultimately wants? Absolute power and obedience? Also, this begs the question, why did God not foresee this fall, if he is all knowing and all powerful? It seems like it was really God that dropped the ball here, and he makes his creation suffer eternally for his mistakes (unless you are willing to be mindlessly obedient, killing whoever God wants you to kill, raping whoever God wants you to rape, etc.). It also confuses me how becoming like God would erase Adam and Eve's holiness and justice. That seems like God is not holy or just.

Not on purpose. No. That’s why I asked it as a question instead of assuming you meant it that way and railing on you. I’ve been on the other end of that too much. And done it too much myself. It’s easy to misconstrue on these forums.

Indeed it is.

[kaziglu bey]

No, that’s not what I believe. Careful on the misconstruing. I think it’s a good idea for us to call it quits tonight. I will as soon as I’m done here.

Can you please tell me then by what definition the word "many" means the same as the word "all"? When you say that "There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future," the use of the word "many" clearly implies that not ALL people had choices about their future. I don't think expecting the words "many" and "all" to signify a different percentage of people (100% vs. not 100%) is misconstruing.

Here’s that strawman you mentioned.

Are you suggesting that I am accusing God of doing something he didn't do? He told Adam he would die the same day as he ate the fruit. God is threatening Adam with death for eating fruit. However, Adam eats the fruit, and lo and behold, Adam does NOT die the same day (in fact, he is alleged to have lived a pretty darn long time.) Don't give me that "God didn't mean that he would die physically, but spiritually" crap. Nowhere in Genesis does God say that. He says simply that Adam will die on the day he eats the fruit. Let's not put words in God's mouth. (Note: if God has an ass, he probably has a mouth too). Therefore, God does in fact threaten and lie to Adam. Note that the serpent(commonly believed to be a manifestation of the Devil) did NOT lie, and did not even suggest to Eve that she eat the fruit. The serpent merely gave Eve the ability to make an informed decision. Why would God not want people to make informed decisions? Because he wants obedient slaves. The serpent did not deceive Eve or Adam, God did. I don't understand why a perfect God would deceive his prized creation, unless he has some personality issues (given his jealousy, vengeance, violent tantrums, and cruel indifference to even his own son's suffering, I think that's a safe conclusion).

Let me check into this one. I may have typed too fast. My thought was that Jesus was fully human and so could have chosen to not do something that God wanted. However, as you say, Jesus was fully God, so he could not have sinned. But does that mean he doesn’t have free will? I don’t think so. Free will is the ability to make decisions based on intellect and will.

Which is precisely what God NEVER wanted his creation to be able to do. Again, why did he not foresee this flaw in his plan?

Because Jesus is God, he had perfect intellect and perfect will, so his decisions would have been perfect. We have choices because we are not perfect and we do not use our will or intellect perfectly.

Can you give me some examples of Jesus' perfect decisions? By what measure are they perfect? Also, if you say we have choices because we are not perfect, this could suggest that Jesus then, being perfect, had no choices and no free will. Someone who by their very nature has no choice, and therefore has no free will. They would HAVE to make perfect choices.

It’s like doing a crossword puzzle. I don’t know all the answers, so I have “choices” about what to put in. Sometimes I put in right answers and sometimes wrong answers. If I were much smarter than I am, then I’d know all the right answers and I’d make my choices to put them in.

I don't think this is quite an appropriate analogy, since Jesus is not "much smarter" but "perfectly" smart. After all, Jesus didn't even have a choice as to whether or not he would be perfect.

I could put in the wrong answers, but I wouldn’t. It would seem like I do not have free will, but really I would have perfect will.

I don't agree. Jesus, being perfect, would not have been at all capable of putting in the wrong answers. His answers would be perfect by default, negating any choice of his in the matter.

Yea, another one of those pesky strawmen. It’s like a Dr. Who episode.

I don't think that's a strawman at all, at least not in regards to what God did. God's plan all along was for Jesus to die. Furthermore, Jesus would have also known that he would be resurrected (for the Catholics, after he spends a short stint in hell.). I don't think it is wrong to question why an allegedly loving and benevolent and all powerful god would require his son to suffer and die just to appease God's own malicious and jealous wrath.

Ah, good points. We’ll get to those tomorrow. For now, please tell me what you mean by the latter? Do you mean that when God showed himself it forced people to a particular way?

I am saying that it is commonly purported by believers that God does not reveal himself these days, because doing so would violate the free will of those to whom he would reveal, as they are not able to make the choice (free will) as to whether or not God is real or not. They would know that he was by such a revelation.

I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.

I am not certain what it is you are asking here. Could you possibly clarify?

[kaziglu bey]

It’s not so much that we inherit guilt. When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice. Because of that loss, our human nature is wounded in its natural powers, without being totally corrupted. Our human nature is now, among other things, inclined toward sin. That inclination toward sin is why we have those characteristics we’ve been discussing.

Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)

To assume that no one would have those characteristics we have to assume that we do not have an inclination toward sin. The only way we’d not have the inclination to sin is if we did not lose the original grace of holiness and justice, that is if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. If they had not disobeyed God, then we would not need to be saved.

so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. Thanks for the question.

Good night!

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.

[kaziglu bey]

You know I have given that some thought, And I would say it happen to be Christian because of the area I live. If I lived in a different area I more that likely would be worshiping God in a different way.

What do you mean by different area? And do you mean worship the SAME God in a different way, or worship a DIFFERENT god altogether? Doesn't your statement concede that the only reason you believe what you do is because it is what is popular where you live, rather than as a result of any objective truth?

[riley2112]

You know I have given that some thought, And I would say it happen to be Christian because of the area I live. If I lived in a different area I more that likely would be worshiping God in a different way.

What do you mean by different area? And do you mean worship the SAME God in a different way, or worship a DIFFERENT god altogether? Doesn't your statement concede that the only reason you believe what you do is because it is what is popular where you live, rather than as a result of any objective truth?

What I mean by a different area is if I was raised in Iran I more than likely would worship God ( YES, the same God, being that I believe(at this time) there is only one true God) in a different way. However there seems to be a growing amount of Christians all over the world, so it is possible that I would still be worshiping the same. However , one more thing that comes into play it the fact that I am questioning the way I worship God in the same area that I was raised in. Which I think would display some objective truth being considered.

[velkyn]

SC is in his usual form.  The pharoah had no free will. It' says that repeatedly in this supposedly magic book.  David's son had no free will in that he was murdered by god for no fault of his own.  IF there was a flood, then we have more children with no free will to avoid the punishemnt of their parents.  Same with the various times that this god smote the Israelites who were rebellign agaisnt him. 

Omniscience is defined by humans so we do know what it is and what it means.  It means someone with it knows "everything" always, not some things, not everything part of the time.  This means that if we are to beleive what  Christians claims, god has known, knows and will know everything.  All that happend, happening, will happen.  Knows what each bird is doign at any time, same with humans.  And since he knows everything, including planning, implementation and result of a plan, there is nothing that can be changed or god would cease being omniscient aka all-knowing.  He would be occasionaly wrong.  And gee, I really don't want to be around when God screws up. 

Christians try to depower their god as soon as it becomes inconvenient to have a god that supposedly can do anything, know anything and is omnibenevolent, all words defined by humans.  It's rather related to the claims that since the Bible didn't reaport a second by second account of everything, then we can make assumptions about what we need the characters to do and feel whilst off screen.  I can say that indeed aliens were flying around Jerusalem circa 1 BC and did crash into Pilate's palace.  Or how about saying that there simply must have been a cafeteria out on the plains outside of Jerusalem to feed those thousands and thousands of people?  Why not say that since I simply know that JC wouldn't have been so stupid to allow himself to have died on teh cross, that part wasn't true and he really was rescued by Judas since he just faked his death?  Bible doesn't say he didn't, right?   

[12 Monkeys]

 SC is a prime example of a religous person(of any sect or religion) in that once you "believe" you no longer have to think or observe the world. You can just sit back and relax and wait for that golden ticket.  In the meantime,people still starve,die of cancer and other diseases.....But SC no longer has to THINK about that stuff.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi kaziglu bey,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. When I tried yesterday it said something about the server being down. I’m also back to work now. Since I have a number of things going on the evenings, I won’t be able to respond as regularly as before. I will respond, though.

At the same time, screwtape and I keep trying to have a debate, if only for the novelty of it, so I should be moving to that soon. Though he’s very patient with me, I don’t want to keep him waiting.

I don't think expecting the words "many" and "all" to signify a different percentage of people (100% vs. not 100%) is misconstruing.

What I had said was

There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not.

When I wrote that I had intended that the word “many” modify “places” and not “people”. My line of thinking for writing it is that the Bible has lots of things going on in it. In some places there are people making decisions. In other places there are not people making decisions, the Bible is talking about other things.

I try to be clear about what I mean when I post, though I am not perfect at it, to say the least. I hope this clears things up and I apologize for the confusion.

Are you suggesting that I am accusing God of doing something he didn't do?

I am not commenting at all on whether God did or did not do something, whether you are accusing him or not, or (later in your post) what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death. These are strawmen because they are neither for nor against the idea that we have free will. What you said that God did in the Garden of Eden does not affect whether Adam and Eve had a choice about their future. Whether it was a fair choice, informed choice, etc is another discussion. The Bible is clear that we have free will and Adam and Eve having a choice is an example of that.

You’ve brought up things unrelated to free will. Since our discussion is about whether the Bible supports free will, let’s stick to that. I made the point that because the Bible shows that people get to make their own choice about the future, the Bible does support the idea that we have free will.

I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.

I am not certain what it is you are asking here. Could you possibly clarify?

LOL! It was clearly too late at night for me by the time I wrote that. I meant “parts of the Bible” not “body.” That’s one for a signature! What I meant was to remind me of where in the Bible you’re referring to.

You’ve addressed that in part, or maybe completely, below.

I am saying that it is commonly purported by believers that God does not reveal himself these days, because doing so would violate the free will of those to whom he would reveal, as they are not able to make the choice (free will) as to whether or not God is real or not. They would know that he was by such a revelation.

I’ve heard similar with respect to other topics, but not free will. Maybe there’s more to the logic, but, as it is above, I don’t think I agree with that.

[SimpleCaveman]

Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)

Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.

Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.

I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.

[Ambassador Pony]

Sin is disobedience against God.

Oxford study bible describes it more like ancient hebrew kooties.

Has about as much substance as being "it" in a game of tag, and is of similar origin.

[12 Monkeys]

Sin is disobedience against God.

Oxford study bible describes it more like ancient hebrew kooties.

Has about as much substance as being "it" in a game of tag, and is of similar origin.

Sin is an excuse so you can dismiss all the bad things you do,by the excuse "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us"

 Why would anybody think so little of themselves to tie belief on such self loathing?

[12 Monkeys]

Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)

Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.

Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.

I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.

WTF so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill......And how is them recieving a message from God different than how you recieve one?  You see if they truly believe God is telling them to kill,how do you differentiate it from what you "truly" think God is telling you?

 Or do you classify these people as mentally ill,much like I class you in the same light-mentally ill....the only difference is "God's" purpose for them was to save their children the torture of hell,by doing as commanded.  Then there are the people of early God who did this kind of killing on the command of God on a regular basis. Why has God not commanded anybody but GW Bush to kill anybody latley?

[kaziglu bey]

Hi kaziglu bey,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. When I tried yesterday it said something about the server being down. I’m also back to work now.

I had the same problem. I think that the server that hosts the forum was having issues. I am currently experiencing a slight case of insomnia, but do not quite have the mental energy to assure a meaningful response. Hopefully I can get back to you during the day or this evening.

[velkyn]

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

and more made up excuses. Hmm, if the bible were true, you’d think SC wouldn’t be able to move for the boils he’d supposedly get.  About the only thing he likely gets right is the adultery (per Deut 22) Funny how his god never says that rape is equivalent to killing or lust and how the rest of the commandments do not treat rape as killing in the least.  It’s always treated as a property loss (Deut 22 also) .  Very much indeed, like that one commandment (in its entirety that Christians often “forget” to notice):

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

   In war, it seems that as long as you weren’t raping Israelite women, they were also simply property and now “yours”.  Judges 21 even has them taking women from fellow beleivers, Numbers 31 of course beign the classic bit of how this god is perfectly fine with rape and murder. 2 Samuel has god being the instigator of rape, to “punish” others.  Ah, this god and his “fairness” and “justice”.

[Omen]

So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?

[12 Monkeys]

So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?

MIND BLOWN.....sit back and wait for the excuses

 In the midst of all the miracles Jesus was performing,Judas must have been less than impressed or he knew it was trickery.
If someone was that "real" as the messiah and convincing beyond question there is NO way Judas could think a few sheckles would be worth it

[Omen]

In the midst of all the miracles Jesus was performing,Judas must have been less than impressed or he knew it was trickery.
If someone was that "real" as the messiah and convincing beyond question there is NO way Judas could think a few sheckles would be worth it

I think this is precisely why the Gospel of Judas existed, to rationalize a weak portion of the narrative.  It can't possibly be true that someone who was so close to the lord, someone to witness the presence of the living god on earth, would so easily and pitilessly betray his lord and savior Jesus Christ.

If you're not aware, in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus asks Judas to betray him on purpose and this act of Judas is glorified.

[SimpleCaveman]

Sin is an excuse so you can dismiss all the bad things you do,by the excuse "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us"

Why would anybody think so little of themselves to tie belief on such self loathing?

That’s quite the contradiction in thinking, to be able to dismiss all the bad things we do and, at the same time, consider that “self loathing.”

It seems to me that your view of how we think of sin, i.e. as an excuse, would more logically lead, not to thinking little of oneself, but to thinking too much of oneself. If for me sin is an excuse, as you say, then it doesn’t matter what I do. I can always say "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us". If I have that “oh well” attitude that you describe, then I don’t have personal responsibility for my actions, and I can do whatever I want.

Of course, that’s not how we think of sin. In fact, the Church has taught for almost 2000 years against that way of thinking. The Jewish faith taught against it before then. If you wronged a friend and insincerely apologized to them, why would they forgive you? Sin is not an excuse. It’s a real wrong done to others and to God. If we are truly sorry for the wrong that we’ve done and we make up for it, then we will be forgiven.

On the other hand, self-loathing is disordered human nature. Christians following God’s gift, God’s will and God’s command would not loathe themselves or one another. On the contrary because we are made in God’s image and likeness we are good and have immense dignity; because we are to be brought into union and communion with God we have majestic purpose and destination for our lives; because we are told to love our neighbor as ourself, love and charity are to permeate everything we do.

Yes, we are nothing compared to God, but that’s hardly a self-loathing. I just made a pot of coffee. That pot of coffee is nothing compared to me, and it was good coffee. We recognize the majesty and the supremacy of God and how small we are compared to the Creator of the Universe. But see the previous paragraph. We are small compared to God, but God brings us to him. He became one of us so that we could become like him.

No, we do not think of sin as an excuse. We do not think so little of ourselves or loathe ourselves. 12 Monkeys, I agree with your sentiments. You argue against the way of thinking that you describe in your posts. I argue against that way of thinking, too. Thank God that’s not what the Catholic Church is about.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hello Everyone,

This post is #777 for me. Without trying to upset anyone, I thought this one should be today’s Gospel reading. Today we celebrate the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. The Gospel is from Mark 1:7-11.

This is what John the Baptist proclaimed:
"One mightier than I is coming after me.
I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.
I have baptized you with water;
he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee
and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open
and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.
And a voice came from the heavens,
"You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

Thank you for your patience.