On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

Wait, you think that God the Son, through which all of creation came into existence, feared physical pain? I would agree that his human nature did not want to endure the actual pain of the cross, but the mind of Jesus was divine and therefore not susceptible to human fear. Jorm was right, it is about your particular Christology. You are just winging it--not that it lines up with some framework you have thought out. 

In fact, all your bluster about "mainstream Christian teaching" is an empty claim when you cannot even correctly characterize what Jesus was facing (as you said: "scared"). He was facing having the entire sins of the world (of all times) put on his shoulders. Because of his divine nature, he was very clear on what that meant--even as we cannot fathom what that means. In fact, the weight of that killed his human nature before the cross could. So, you tell me...IF Jesus knew that having the sins of the world put on his shoulders would kill him before some pretty barbaric physical torture could, what do you think was more on his mind in the garden? 

It doesn't matter what he really feared. What matters for my point is that he experienced fear and other human weaknesses. I'm glad, by the way, that you've backtracked a little to concede that Jesus did experience fear according to the Bible.

But anyway, I'm well aware that you Christians have been conditioned to spiritualize almost everything that happened with Jesus, including this account of the Garden of Gethsemane. It's not like I've never attended sermons by Christian pastors elaborating on passages such as this, or done some Bible study sessions. So whatever, I'm all too happy to grant you that Jesus feared spiritual suffering, even if taken literally, the passage implies that he feared physical suffering.

But whatever it may be, he still experienced fear. That's all the point I'm trying to make here. Again, if your god is somehow able to experience human weakness via incarnation, then that's a problem for your argument that bravery cannot be considered a viable candidate for one of the great-making property for your god. Somehow, your god is able to be "beyond divine" by experiencing human weakness. How? No idea. But if he can experience fear, than bravery is something that can be applied to him as well.

Of course, theologians don't call the Christian God "brave", but we're not just doing theology here. If there's fear, then there's potential for bravery or courage or whatever you want to call it.

The real point to be made, though, is what others have argued earlier. That you're simply picking and choosing what goes into the set of great-making properties for the divine and what doesn't.

I have conceded nothing. I responded to your mocking of Jesus' "sorrow" mentioned in the passage as the reason for the distress. You cannot come up with a passage that says or even implies Jesus feared. You failed. Move on. I won't respond again.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, its easier to never examine one's convictions.

I think he is referring to the maintenance of a predetermined conclusion come hell or high-water.  Personally, no matter how faithfully a belief has served me I would prefer to always allow its extinction when a better one becomes apparent.

Agreed. IMHO I feel I have done reasonable due diligence with respect to my religion, without being exhaustive. For many years I was quite satisfied with atheism. Eventually, though atheism, and all it implied, started to feel like an uncomfortable fit for me. I see nothing but an inevitable decent into nihilism. YMMV.

I truly sympathize with the negative experiences many atheists had during their formative years. I still remember some paraministry guy lecturing our youth group about D&D being a form of demon worship and how rock bands put subliminal Satanic messages in their songs. It was laughable...like those simplistic pamphlets about YEC. I also remember having to watch "Like a Thief in the Night" when I was just a kid. It was terrifying! When I was a senior in high school, a church elder, in blubbering tears, confessed to the congregation to having diddled his daughter and begging us all for forgiveness. Then during spring break, I went to church in my hometown and they were passing around a petition to express their outrage at "The Last Temptation of Christ". I'm pretty sure I was the only person there who saw it.

What I'm saying is that I've seen and experienced all the same obvious bassackwardness of religion in America that many AF members have. And yet that doesn't change my basic belief that the larger Christian tradition with its rich intellectual history, the great faith of Eric Liddle and Bonhoeffer, and internal struggles to understand and live out the Gospel...the larger tradition has something profound and essential to say about the human condition. I acknowledge the shortcomings and failures of the church. At the same time, I see a firm foundation under the tottering construction built on top of it.

Yes, faith in God requires service and maintenance. Nothing worthwhile is easily attained.

[GrandizerII]

It doesn't matter what he really feared. What matters for my point is that he experienced fear and other human weaknesses. I'm glad, by the way, that you've backtracked a little to concede that Jesus did experience fear according to the Bible.

But anyway, I'm well aware that you Christians have been conditioned to spiritualize almost everything that happened with Jesus, including this account of the Garden of Gethsemane. It's not like I've never attended sermons by Christian pastors elaborating on passages such as this, or done some Bible study sessions. So whatever, I'm all too happy to grant you that Jesus feared spiritual suffering, even if taken literally, the passage implies that he feared physical suffering.

But whatever it may be, he still experienced fear. That's all the point I'm trying to make here. Again, if your god is somehow able to experience human weakness via incarnation, then that's a problem for your argument that bravery cannot be considered a viable candidate for one of the great-making property for your god. Somehow, your god is able to be "beyond divine" by experiencing human weakness. How? No idea. But if he can experience fear, than bravery is something that can be applied to him as well.

Of course, theologians don't call the Christian God "brave", but we're not just doing theology here. If there's fear, then there's potential for bravery or courage or whatever you want to call it.

The real point to be made, though, is what others have argued earlier. That you're simply picking and choosing what goes into the set of great-making properties for the divine and what doesn't.

I have conceded nothing. I responded to your mocking of Jesus' "sorrow" mentioned in the passage as the reason for the distress. You cannot come up with a passage that says or even implies Jesus feared. You failed. Move on. I won't respond again.

So all these Christian theologians saying Jesus actually experienced fear were wrong, and you just happen to be right because ... why ... you overrate yourself? lol ...

[Neo-Scholastic]

So all these Christian theologians saying Jesus actually experienced fear were wrong, and you just happen to be right because ... why ... you overrate yourself? lol ...

This might be one of those areas where SteveII and I might see things slightly differently. IMO when emotions are coupled with purpose they are transformed. Training and running a marathon is painful and grueling. My tri-athlete friend simultaneously welcomed and dreaded it. Those emotions are not mutually exclusive; but rather, complimentary. What he gained by his achievement and experience remains very valuable to him.

[Abaddon_ire]

So all these Christian theologians saying Jesus actually experienced fear were wrong, and you just happen to be right because ... why ... you overrate yourself? lol ...

This might be one of those areas where SteveII and I might see things slightly differently. IMO when emotions are coupled with purpose they are transformed. Training and running a marathon is painful and grueling. My tri-athlete friend simultaneously welcomed and dreaded it. Those emotions are not mutually exclusive; but rather, complimentary. What he gained by his achievement and experience remains very valuable to him.

How can you and SteveII see things differently? Was you god unclear in some way? Is your deity of choice so incompetent that he/she/it/housecat is unable to clearly communicate, even to his own faithful?

That is one failure of a deity you have.

[SteveII]

So all these Christian theologians saying Jesus actually experienced fear were wrong, and you just happen to be right because ... why ... you overrate yourself? lol ...

This might be one of those areas where SteveII and I might see things slightly differently. IMO when emotions are coupled with purpose they are transformed. Training and running a marathon is painful and grueling. My tri-athlete friend simultaneously welcomed and dreaded it. Those emotions are not mutually exclusive; but rather, complimentary. What he gained by his achievement and experience remains very valuable to him.

We probably agree. This started when I said bravery was not an attribute of God. Then the question was why. I said because bravery requires one to overcome fears and fear is not something God deals with. Grand claims that Jesus is God and Jesus fears. He is wrong on both counts. First Jesus is not just God.  Second I think the correct Christology is that the mind/soul of Jesus was divine. As the creator of all there is and a knowledge of all that his sacrifice entailed, I don't think that bravery was even a possible attribute of Jesus--let along described in the NT.

[Abaddon_ire]

This might be one of those areas where SteveII and I might see things slightly differently. IMO when emotions are coupled with purpose they are transformed. Training and running a marathon is painful and grueling. My tri-athlete friend simultaneously welcomed and dreaded it. Those emotions are not mutually exclusive; but rather, complimentary. What he gained by his achievement and experience remains very valuable to him.

We probably agree. This started when I said bravery was not an attribute of God. Then the question was why. I said because bravery requires one to overcome fears and fear is not something God deals with.

Oh, so now your claim is that your gunderscored is NOT maximally great, possessing no courage. What lets you place limitations on your gunderscored? And why is it worthy of worship if it is a limited being like the rest of us?

Grand claims that Jesus is God and Jesus fears. He is wrong on both counts. First Jesus is not just God.  Second I think the correct Christology is that the mind/soul of Jesus was divine. As the creator of all there is and a knowledge of all that his sacrifice entailed, I don't think that bravery was even a possible attribute of Jesus--let along described in the NT.

And you made all of that crap up out of whole cloth. All you have done is create larger problems for your wild claims.

If jebus cannot experience fear, then jebus is not fully human.
If jebus is greater than god, then what do we need with god?
If jebus is the creator of everything, what use is god?
If jebus didn't die, where was the sacrifice? What was sacrificed by him? Temporarily inconvenienced for part of a weekend? What exactly did jebus "sacrifice"?

[Drich]

This might be one of those areas where SteveII and I might see things slightly differently. IMO when emotions are coupled with purpose they are transformed. Training and running a marathon is painful and grueling. My tri-athlete friend simultaneously welcomed and dreaded it. Those emotions are not mutually exclusive; but rather, complimentary. What he gained by his achievement and experience remains very valuable to him.

How can you and SteveII see things differently? Was you god unclear in some way? Is your deity of choice so incompetent that he/she/it/housecat is unable to clearly communicate, even to his own faithful?

That is one failure of a deity you have.

how short sighted you are.

Steve and neo are two different people or put biblically they are two different members of the same body which Jesus is the head. Meaning they have different functions as members of the body(church) as such will come to understand the body/church as they function. say steve were a hand and neo were an eye. the description steve may give of the church could only come from how the body felt to steve a hand and then his description of the body would best serve someone like steve who feels. but neo as an eye would describe just as accurately the same body as an eye, while neo may focus on colors and shades steve looks or feels for texture and warmth. Same body two different explanations.

This very explanation is found in the bible. what narrow minded people see as weakness we collectively derive strength. All this to say there is no one way to see or worship the God of the bible. We are simply tasked to take all God has given us to use and understand and direct it toward him. for a hand this love and worship may look strange to an eye...

do you understand what or why we will worship and understand God differently?

[Whateverist]

I think he is referring to the maintenance of a predetermined conclusion come hell or high-water.  Personally, no matter how faithfully a belief has served me I would prefer to always allow its extinction when a better one becomes apparent.

Eventually, though atheism, and all it implied, started to feel like an uncomfortable fit for me. I see nothing but an inevitable decent into nihilism. YMMV.

Indeed. For me atheism is an awkward label. I fully believe in 'something more' but I refuse to impose a form for it to take. But I assume the something more is entirely supported by the natural world and that the supernatural as a category is a fruit obtained by crossing over-intellectualizing with a hope that the answer may be found within a traditional form. My 'faith' is in the unconscious mind being the seat of the something more but like every other belief I hold it must fend for itself. If something better comes along it could be defeated by a better explanation and I will have lost nothing.

For me, between nihilism and the authority of tradition there is plenty of room for depth of experience, understanding and relationships which I find entirely satisfying. I desire to live this life on its own terms and to see it unvarnished. So far I don't find it wanting in any way.

I truly sympathize with the negative experiences many atheists had during their formative years. I still remember some paraministry guy lecturing our youth group about D&D being a form of demon worship and how rock bands put subliminal Satanic messages in their songs. It was laughable...like those simplistic pamphlets about YEC. I also remember having to watch "Like a Thief in the Night" when I was just a kid. It was terrifying! When I was a senior in high school, a church elder, in blubbering tears, confessed to the congregation to having diddled his daughter and begging us all for forgiveness. Then during spring break, I went to church in my hometown and they were passing around a petition to express their outrage at "The Last Temptation of Christ". I'm pretty sure I was the only person there who saw it.

I give you credit for being a more credible 'ex-atheist' than the horde of apologists who say the same and then immediately say things that make you wonder if they even know what that means.

What I'm saying is that I've seen and experienced all the same obvious bassackwardness of religion in America that many AF members have. And yet that doesn't change my basic belief that the larger Christian tradition with its rich intellectual history, the great faith of Eric Liddle and Bonhoeffer, and internal struggles to understand and live out the Gospel...the larger tradition has something profound and essential to say about the human condition. I acknowledge the shortcomings and failures of the church. At the same time, I see a firm foundation under the tottering construction built on top of it.

I agree that there are many more legions of unthinking believers than there are others but I have managed to find quite a few of the interesting ones. These to me are interesting and worth talking with. But while I've found a few who seem every bit as grounded in reality and humanity as anyone else, I've never heard anything close to a good reason for anyone else to believe as they do. The better ones never suggest that such a reason exists and are happy enough to admit that their faith required a leap but they have found the result to their liking for a number of reasons. For my part I can allow that it does not require a damaged mind to incorporate religious belief into a modern mindset but I surely do not find many who succeed.

[Abaddon_ire]

[quote='Abaddon_ire' pid='1825291' dateline='1538668483']

How can you and SteveII see things differently? Was you god unclear in some way? Is your deity of choice so incompetent that he/she/it/housecat is unable to clearly communicate, even to his own faithful?
That is one failure of a deity you have.

how short sighted you are.

Steve and neo are two different people or put biblically they are two different members of the same body which Jesus is the head.['quote]Well no. Steve and neo have conflicting versions of their god and what their god intends. They cannot both be correct.

Meaning they have different functions as members of the body(church) as such will come to understand the body/church as they function.

Baloney. Your god claims to NOT be the author of confusion, yet your god spreads confusion intentionally

say steve were a hand and neo were an eye. the description steve may give of the church could only come from how the body felt to steve a hand and then his description of the body would best serve someone like steve who feels. but neo as an eye would describe just as accurately the same body as an eye, while neo may focus on colors and shades steve looks or feels for texture and warmth. Same body two different explanations.

BS. Both bible and koran would claim that I should morally murder my transgender child. That makes you all into scum.

This very explanation is found in the bible. what narrow minded people see as weakness we collectively derive strength.[;quote]Nope. Superstitious delusion perhaps, but nothing more.
[quote='Kibbi' pid='1825363' dateline='1538672574'] All this to say there is no one way to see or worship the God of the bible. We are simply tasked to take all God has given us to use and understand and direct it toward him. for a hand this love and worship may look strange to an eye...

Including butchering my child. Nice god you have there. Shame if something happened to your boss, no?

do you understand what or why we will worship and understand God differently?

Nope. Worshipping such a thug makes you complicit in his/hers/its/housecats immorality. Tell me. What should I do with my transgender teen? Have you a foggiest clue?