On Hell and Forgiveness

[Drich]

Well no. Steve and neo have conflicting versions of their god and what their god intends. They cannot both be correct.

glob...
yes they can, and no they don't have to be is the point. An eye may see a dark spot on the body and then a hand who can not see the dark spot may feel the spot and sense that it is cold and dry. Well which one is right. both from their own specific pov and possible neither from a pov of taste. You must be able to identify to whom or what attribute which member is speaking and to what reason. It is easy if they are trying to say the bible says xyz.. if it says it then it says xyz.. but if the bible is silent and you are trying to discern a feeling or internal though fro 2000 years away from a second hand account... then whatever evidence one gathers is from their want/need to worship God with all God gave them hence the had feeling a cold dry spot and an eye recording a dark spot. there is no way for the eye to see/feel what the hand does and vise versa...

So Drich what is they are just wrong?!?!?

Grace and atonement. Think about it. why would God extend grace and atonement for a deliberate sin, and be unbending when his children are using every gift they have to try and discern the bible and they simply come up wrong? Granted God will not fully support someone so far out into left field that it would ruin them if He did support them, but He does not send people to hell for simply being wrong. God will work with those with open hearts and guide them to the Holy Spirit which will teach them.

[Abaddon_ire]

"grace and atonement" is something that believers have glommed onto as a bare excuse for their claimed god's demonstrable immorality.

That you also glom onto it further demonstrates that you are also imorral.

Why on earth did you post this?

[Amarok]

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.

That just means you were a terrible atheist

---

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

Or having a position that makes sense and thus does not require it .

[The Grand Nudger]

Which one of them is the asshole part of that body Drich, so I know when it's talking?  Or is that position already taken?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Did Jesus experience fear? Steve says no. And yet, he says he probably agrees with you. Do you agree with him on that?

---

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.

Hypostatic union Jesus is both God and man. One person, two natures. If Jesus the man experienced fear, then Jesus the God experienced the same ... because they're the same person according to the doctrine.

And according to various theologians, Jesus did experience fear as implied in the passage. He was basically shitting himself and, for a second, wanted the Father to take away the "cup" of suffering from him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Did Jesus experience fear? Steve says no. And yet, he says he probably agrees with you. Do you agree with him on that?

We're probably splitting hairs. I would say the emotion of Jesus was more trepidation over the certain and impending pain.

Hypostatic union Jesus is both God and man. One person, two natures. If Jesus the man experienced fear, then Jesus the God experienced the same ... because they're the same person according to the doctrine.

That is not orthodox doctrine at all. Only one person of the Godhead, the Son, experienced the Passion and that Passion fully united with the Purpose of the Father, and manifested by the Holy Spirit.

[GrandizerII]

Did Jesus experience fear? Steve says no. And yet, he says he probably agrees with you. Do you agree with him on that?

We're probably splitting hairs. I would say the emotion of Jesus was more trepidation over the certain and impending pain.

trepidation:
a feeling of fear or anxiety about something that may happen

Is this what you mean?

Hypostatic union Jesus is both God and man. One person, two natures. If Jesus the man experienced fear, then Jesus the God experienced the same ... because they're the same person according to the doctrine.

That is not orthodox doctrine at all. Only one person of the Godhead, the Son, experienced the Passion and that Passion fully united with the Purpose of the Father, and manifested by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I didn't say the Father or the Holy Spirit experienced the Passion ...

[Angrboda]

Hypostatic union Jesus is both God and man. One person, two natures. If Jesus the man experienced fear, then Jesus the God experienced the same ... because they're the same person according to the doctrine.

That is not orthodox doctrine at all. Only one person of the Godhead, the Son, experienced the Passion and that Passion fully united with the Purpose of the Father, and manifested by the Holy Spirit.

I believe it is doctrine that all persons of the godhead are united in their actions. Perhaps you'd like to cite something that says otherwise.

---

OFC, jesus, being both fully human and fully divine, could not lack important characteristics of human personhood...or the sacrifice would be diminished.  That was the point of including his nature as one of the central mysteries and tenets of the orthodox faiths.  The heterodox think that you're a loon through and through.  How could an entity be fully human, in a sacrificially meaningful way, if it were deficient in such basic and defining virtues of humanity?

I get it. :-) That was one of the central paradoxes that prompted my prior atheism. That and the Trinity. Neither made any sense to me until I started to read Swedenborg's True Christianity. Similarly, the Eucharist didn't make sense to me until I delved deeper into the Scholastics. Both were kind of like calculus, I struggled mightily because it was so foreign. But once I really got a handle on the concepts, it all started to fit together. Today, I probably couldn't explain how to work the simplest "diffy-Q" but the general understanding and respect for its beauty remains.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of Swedenborg's account of Jesus' nature. From what I recall, the hypostatic union was a position that was more declared by fiat than by reason. My experience has been that all such Christologies fail in one aspect or another, but I am not familiar with yours or Swedenborg's. Steve, for his part, recently volunteered what appeared to be a form of Appollinarianism which I suspect he picked up from Craig. (He can elaborate if he so desires.) I would appreciate your sharing Swedenborg's Christology on the subject.

[Haipule]

Trinity sminity: Spirit smearit! It's all calculus and it's all lame! All that does is establish a magic sky God, with magic powers, that does not exist!

The OT and the NT was written mainly for the illiterate fisherman and farmer of that day. That following God in your life will keep you from harm and keep you out of trouble--that's it!

The purpose for Scripture is that you can live an abundant life and thrive in it! To be glorious! Without always fucking it up!

It's God's way or your on your own. On your own you have to deal with all the fucked up shit in this world without a Champion! Without leadership that knows where He wishes you to be at all times; protected, delivered, safe and out of harms way. To make you, to build you, to prosper you in all your ways following His simple instructions.

Through doctrines these very simple instructions have been turned into gross religiosities establishing the false power of the clergy while hiding this power from us!

[Drich]

"grace and atonement" is something that believers have glommed onto as a bare excuse for their claimed god's demonstrable immorality.

That you also glom onto it further demonstrates that you are also imorral.

Why on earth did you post this?

Well if you would have read my post and not just looked for key words IE: "Grace and atonement" you would not have come to the wrong conclusion about immortality and answered your own question. But the issue is you are not reading my responses you are just looking for words you know that you have arguments for, and without reading you just post up a defense for when christians use those words...

not the case here

---

Which one of them is the asshole part of that body Drich, so I know when it's talking?  Or is that position already taken?

If you were a member of the church I'd say you... but since you are not, simply look for anyone you are drawn to/you like or like what they have to say.