• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The despised Cross of Christ

InChrist

Free4ever
This excuses why God is an imperfect creator; it doesn't make God a perfect creator..
According to the scriptures, God is all-knowing and does everything based on His perfect wisdom and understanding. I trust in God's perfection and wisdom rather than the finite imperfect wisdom of a human, including yours, which calls God imperfect.


Is there sin in Heaven? Is there free will in Heaven?
There will be no sin in heaven because those in heaven will have already here on earth chosen to completely trust God and in heaven their wills are forever fully in harmony and one with God's will.


So sin has been "solved"? In what sense? You said earlier that there's still sin in the world, still causing ramifications.
In the sense of eternity. This world is not the goal of God, the new heaven and the new earth are and all who choose to be with Him in that place of sin free eternal glory and joy.





Why isn't it an option for the penalty not to be borne at all? Why can't God just forgive it?

In the past, Christians have told me that "perfect justice" demands that sin be punished, but since letting the guilty go free AND punishing the innocent is less just than merely letting the guilty go free, this explanation makes no sense AFAICT.
Does a human judge just forgive thieves and murderers? Yet, you think God should just forgive these and every other wrong? God's justice is perfect because His method of dealing with sin to prevent such behavior from entering the eternity of the new heaven and earth is to either separate it (hell. lake of fire) or in His mercy take the punishment Himself in Christ and transform the lives of all who want to be changed and delivered from sin forever.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Neither.

I don't despise it.

I don't embrace it.

It's of no great importance to me.
Thanks for expressing your perspective. I guess you don't believe in a personal Creator to whom you are accountable for your actions or see any need for a Savior, would that be a correct guess?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
God is omnipotent, is he not? Then anyone who is in hell, he is choosing to put there.
I don't see it that way, but rather that God is not forcing anyone to spend eternity with Him in the new heaven and new earth which will be sin free and filled only with His perfect love. That leaves being separated from His presence, which is hell.


I'm not talking about horrible sins, I'm talking about horrible commandments. And not just in the Old Testament:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Eph 6:5)

But while we're on the topic, why did he proscribe half the stuff in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. At the time, was it just and righteous to make an unmarried rape victim marry their rapist? Or to stone children to death for cursing at their parents? Maybe I don't deserve to be put to death for lying with another man now, but would I have had to then?
Because you seem to already have a distrust and dislike for God and don't appear to understand the heart of God or the purpose of the scriptures above. I don't think I can say much that would be meaningful to you.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Thanks for expressing your perspective. I guess you don't believe in a personal Creator to whom you are accountable for your actions or see any need for a Savior, would that be a correct guess?
Yes and no. It's a bit more complicated than that.
 

vaguelyhumanoid

Active Member
I don't see it that way, but rather that God is not forcing anyone to spend eternity with Him in the new heaven and new earth which will be sin free and filled only with His perfect love. That leaves being separated from His presence, which is hell.

But are people in hell actively being tortured?

Because you seem to already have a distrust and dislike for God and don't appear to understand the heart of God or the purpose of the scriptures above. I don't think I can say much that would be meaningful to you.

No, I want to know what your perspective is. How do you justify these doctrines? Is the purpose you speak of somehow different from the literal meaning?
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
I don't despise the cross but there are aspects of Christianity I don't like or have much respect for. It's not unique in that regard.

I'm genuinely glad when it becomes meaningful, helpful, inspirational to a person and they end up better for it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
According to the scriptures, God is all-knowing and does everything based on His perfect wisdom and understanding. I trust in God's perfection and wisdom rather than the finite imperfect wisdom of a human, including yours, which calls God imperfect.
But you're setting up a contradiction. As I've been saying, the quality of a creator is judged by its creation - an imperfect creation necessarily implies an imperfect creator. This means that calling God a perfect creator means calling his creation - i.e. us - perfect as well.

... but you've said several times now that you believe that humanity is imperfect. Not only that, if humanity was perfect already, then Christ's sacrifice would be unnecessary.

So are you sure? You're implying here that Christ's sacrifice was in vain. Is this really what you believe?

The creations of imperfect creators don't need fixing, so whatever position you take, you're undermining your position.

There will be no sin in heaven because those in heaven will have already here on earth chosen to completely trust God and in heaven their wills are forever fully in harmony and one with God's will.
"One with God's will" as in "no longer free"? Either way, you have a problem:

- if there's free will in Heaven, then free will doesn't have to result in sin.
- if there's no free will in Heaven, then God doesn't actually care about maintaining free will in the long run.

In the sense of eternity. This world is not the goal of God, the new heaven and the new earth are and all who choose to be with Him in that place of sin free eternal glory and joy.
Hmm. Okay.

Does a human judge just forgive thieves and murderers? Yet, you think God should just forgive these and every other wrong?
Human judges forgive crimes all the time: it's called a suspended sentence. What human judges (the ones who aren't corrupt or evil, anyhow) don't do, though, is knowingly punish the innocent for the crimes of others.

But you keep on dodging the point: I'm not arguing that all crimes should be forgiven; I'm saying that simply forgiving all crimes is more just than forgiving all crimes AND punishing an innocent person for all of them, so this aspect of Christian theology denies justice.

God's justice is perfect because His method of dealing with sin to prevent such behavior from entering the eternity of the new heaven and earth is to either separate it (hell. lake of fire) or in His mercy take the punishment Himself in Christ and transform the lives of all who want to be changed and delivered from sin forever.
This doesn't equate with "perfect justice"; you're really only saying that the system God has set up accomplishes some of God's goals. This is a separate question from whether it's just - unjust acts often work toward someone's goals.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Anyhow, @InChrist - I hope you appreciate my perspective and why I feel the way I do. I'll probably never be able to convibce you that punishing an innocent man for another person's crimes is a denial of justice, but I hope you understand why I do.

Mainly, though, I want you to realize that your mischaracterization in your OP is wrong:

In the world where humanist mindset prevails that all are inherently good the cross is despised because it is contrary to such thinking and confronts human pride and the sinfulness of human nature.

I'm a humanist. This doesn't mean that I think all people are inherently good (it does mean that I think people have inherent value, but that's not the same thing). I don't reject the cross because it's contrary to a view I don't hold or because of my pride; I reject it because I think that it's evil and unjust. I reject it because I believe that it's wrong for one person to be punished for the crimes of another.

I don't reject the cross because of pride; I reject it because of compassion.

There are many reasons why I'm not a Christian, but if I had to list them in order of importance, I'd say that "the injustice of the cross" is higher than "lack of belief in God".
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a humanist. This doesn't mean that I think all people are inherently good (it does mean that I think people have inherent value, but that's not the same thing). I don't reject the cross because it's contrary to a view I don't hold or because of my pride; I reject it because I think that it's evil and unjust. I reject it because I believe that it's wrong for one person to be punished for the crimes of another.

I don't reject the cross because of pride; I reject it because of compassion.

There are many reasons why I'm not a Christian, but if I had to list them in order of importance, I'd say that "the injustice of the cross" is higher than "lack of belief in God".
Humanism is from my point of view, an early Christian view fundamentally compatible with the NT, which is a commentary on the Tanak attempting to explain the injustice that the Jews have faced. It becomes clear when you realize that absolutely zero of the predictions referenced in the gospels are about a man but are about Judaism and when you realize that all of the gospel authors know it. While it may not be readily apparent just from reading the NT it becomes apparent if you look up every reference in the NT to find out what all of the predictions are of. They are all about the destruction and renewal of Israel for the sake of the world. In reality the writings of the gospels are about suffering and why good people suffer, and they are about humanist acts. I think early Christians should today be thought of as agnostics and are seen in ancient times as atheists and a threat to temples, although that they posit a unity for all people and in that sense are monotheists. The crucifixion represents the deaths and injustices faced by the Jews, a subject repeatedly referenced in the canon. All references to prophecies in the gospels and the letters on the NT consistently refer to comments about Israel and its renewal and deal with the 'Why' of its destruction.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
But are people in hell actively being tortured?
The scriptures never use the word ;tortured in reference to those in hell. The word used is torment. I think the difference is important because I don't see that God desires to torture anyone since the Bible states that God is... patient toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). From my reading of the scriptures God desires repentance, or change in each person's sinful direction and life which brings deliverance and freedom from sin and its painful and destructive effects, to a large degree in this life, but not completely until one enters eternity,. Eternity being the goal. I believe we were created for the purpose of living in eternal relationship with God, this brings complete fulfillment and joy. But for someone separated from the purpose their Creator and the whole purpose for their existence it will be torment, not by God desire, but by their own rejection of Him and His desire for their life..



No, I want to know what your perspective is. How do you justify these doctrines? Is the purpose you speak of somehow different from the literal meaning?

I think if one outright rejects the clear passages of the scripture stating that all have sinned and are in need of a Savior, refusing to agree with God, then it is impossible to understand the more difficult or controversial passages in the the scriptures. Although, I read the Bible in the past and thought I understood aspects of it, I also found it confusing and often didn't make sense. It was not until I agreed with God's Word, repented and was born again that It all became clear and made sense (1 Corinthians 2:14). Of course I had to experience some difficult and intense circumstances in my life to reach that point of realizing how self-centered and sinful I actually was and agree with God. I just thank Him for His faithfulness in working through the situations which occur in this life to have gotten me to wake up to Reality. As John Newton wrote in Amazing Grace,."I was blind, but now I see...".

So, I don't think sharing my perspective on doctrines which you think are difficult or bad would accomplish much. If you want to discuss certain doctrines anyway, that's fine, but I prefer one at a time rather than several unrelated ones thrown together.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I don't despise the cross but there are aspects of Christianity I don't like or have much respect for. It's not unique in that regard.

I'm genuinely glad when it becomes meaningful, helpful, inspirational to a person and they end up better for it.
Well, I don't think it is too surprising that there are aspects to "Christianity" which you don't like or respect. There is plenty I don't like or respect, but I do think that it may be possible that those aspects which are not deserving of respect are not really biblical Christianity at all, but rather false impressions given by fallible humans instead of what the scriptures express and Who Christ is.There is a lot of Christianity which I don't think truly represents Christ or biblical truth at all and that is because all claiming to be Christians are fallible, including me. No one is going to represent Christ completely accurately, some more than others and some completely askew. That is the reason I see the importance of continually searching and filtering everything through the scriptures and looking to Jesus Christ alone.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Anyhow, @InChrist - I hope you appreciate my perspective and why I feel the way I do. I'll probably never be able to convibce you that punishing an innocent man for another person's crimes is a denial of justice, but I hope you understand why I do.

Mainly, though, I want you to realize that your mischaracterization in your OP is wrong:



I'm a humanist. This doesn't mean that I think all people are inherently good (it does mean that I think people have inherent value, but that's not the same thing). I don't reject the cross because it's contrary to a view I don't hold or because of my pride; I reject it because I think that it's evil and unjust. I reject it because I believe that it's wrong for one person to be punished for the crimes of another.

I don't reject the cross because of pride; I reject it because of compassion.

There are many reasons why I'm not a Christian, but if I had to list them in order of importance, I'd say that "the injustice of the cross" is higher than "lack of belief in God".
I do appreciate your perspective and I thank you again for sharing it. I can see (or read) that you are being sincere in your reasoning for rejecting the cross. As you have said we probably won't agree and I think this is simply because we are looking at it with such vastly different perspectives. I apologize if I seemed to have come across with an attitude of blanket mischracterization in the OP. That wasn't my intention.

I believe you when you say you reject the cross because of compassion. I do wonder, though, if you had, let's say, the complete eternal picture and you did understand that God had valid justifiable reasons for doing what He did on the cross, do you think you would then be able to trust and accept His action involving the cross to save His created being?
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
Whoever you are, whatever you believe, do you despise or embrace what the cross of Jesus Christ represents?
I'm sure I'm not the first to point out the false dichotomy here (I'll confess I haven't read every post in the thread). There is a huge range of attitudes between embracing something and despising it, including the neutral viewpoint that the cross is an interesting piece of religious symbolism, as important to christians as the crescent moon or the ankh is or has been to other groups. Why you should assume that the only alternative to embracing it is to despise it I cannot imagine: is it something Paul said?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I'm sure I'm not the first to point out the false dichotomy here (I'll confess I haven't read every post in the thread). There is a huge range of attitudes between embracing something and despising it, including the neutral viewpoint that the cross is an interesting piece of religious symbolism, as important to christians as the crescent moon or the ankh is or has been to other groups. Why you should assume that the only alternative to embracing it is to despise it I cannot imagine: is it something Paul said?
You are probably right. I should have included apathy and indifference toward the cross or ignoring it.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I'm sure I'm not the first to point out the false dichotomy here (I'll confess I haven't read every post in the thread). There is a huge range of attitudes between embracing something and despising it, including the neutral viewpoint that the cross is an interesting piece of religious symbolism, as important to christians as the crescent moon or the ankh is or has been to other groups. Why you should assume that the only alternative to embracing it is to despise it I cannot imagine: is it something Paul said?
It comes from a very strict categorical thinking (everything is black-and-white). Like Jesus was making it to be when he said that either they were with him or against him. If you're not with him, then you're against him. That same kind of thinking can be seen today in politics. Like I said to another poster some days ago, humans evolved to have color vision, but we still think everything is black-and-white.
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his works.

Revelations 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.
Wizanda,

If good works are the basis of salvation then that would mean you also adheres with the cult churches who workout their salvation by works instead of Christ.

Eph. 2:8-10
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9. not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
10. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

If a person can be saved by good works or by works, why need to be a Christian or a believer in Yeshua? What is the use of your works?
It says they were out preaching, and healing the sick with anointing oil, not baptizing, you can't make it fit they were, by adding a later understanding of what Christian ideology means when it says to preach.
Acts 8:34-38
34. And the eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?"
35. And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36. And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
37. [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
38. And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Not in the made up gospel of John, as we can't trust any of those are his words.... Yet someone in a chat room put forward a good argument yesterday; which is that when asked by the Sanhedrin:

Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (64) Jesus said to him, “You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you, after this you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.”

So he did say he was in a future context, as all things haven't been fulfilled, and we will clearly know when it is the Messianic age.
I think you quoted Christ's second coming. What are you expecting for a Messiah?

Isa. 9:6-7
6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.
Luke 21:8 He said, “Watch out that you don’t get led astray, for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I (Ego) am (I-mee),’ and, ‘The time is at hand.’ Therefore don’t follow them.

Paul made that bit up, as the vocabulary shows, Yeshua didn't speak that way in the synoptic gospels, and warns against it, it is only found in the bits that are made up or misrepresented.
Oh. There are a lot of misinterpretation about the synoptic gospels. What makes Jesus speaking to Paul not valid? Jesus did say he will use Paul as the instrument to bear his name to Jews and Gentiles.
Acts 9:15-16
15. But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16. for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."

How about the parable of the Great Banquet at Luke 14:15-24, do you think that receiving Jesus Christ is not for Gentiles?

Thanks
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
If good works are the basis of salvation then that would mean you also adheres with the cult churches who workout their salvation by works instead of Christ.
Sorry when you've removed Paul, John and Simon the stone (petros); Yeshua was the one teaching it is by our works we will be judged.
If a person can be saved by good works or by works, why need to be a Christian or a believer in Yeshua?
You don't need to be a believer in Yeshua; yet you do need to follow what he was teaching to get into Heaven, which is why his name means Salvation, as by his teachings, he shows what is required.

Being a Christian shows people to either not be following Yeshua or to be a blatant hypocrite.
What is the use of your works?
See this is how i know you don't follow Yeshua, as you're asking such silly questions.... Works glorify God, works help do the work of God, works start to make here on earth, as it is Heaven, works show you to be worthy of being in the Messianic age.

Seriously what did you think all Yeshua's parables were about, when he was talking about servants working?
I think you quoted Christ's second coming. What are you expecting for a Messiah?
Based on the text, fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies: there shall be a removal of all the workers of iniquity, and hypocrites; it shall happen in a single day.... Those who remain, shall reign with God in the Messianic age.
What makes Jesus speaking to Paul not valid? Jesus did say he will use Paul as the instrument to bear his name to Jews and Gentiles.
Yeshua didn't speak to Paul, he made it up.

If Paul didn't make it up, then his words should match the teachings of Yeshua, as this list shows, yet they don't and contradict on most points.

Therefore Paul is just a pharisee infiltrator, and the deception Yeshua prophesied would happen soon after.
How about the parable of the Great Banquet at Luke 14:15-24, do you think that receiving Jesus Christ is not for Gentiles?
Yes Yeshua was a light unto the Gentiles; yet the disciples were going to do that, and by following Yeshua's teachings.

Instead what we see is Christianity is a replica of Pharisaic Judaism, corrupt from the very beginning.

The Ebionites were more inline with Yeshua's teachings, and were possibly the early church giving up wealth, that Paul wiped out, and then created his own religion (Christianity) on top of it. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Instead what we see is Christianity is a replica of Pharisaic Judaism, corrupt from the very beginning.
So all or most Pharisees were and are corrupt? I would assume that would also apply to Jesus since he was basically working from a liberal Pharisee position?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
So all or most Pharisees were and are corrupt?
If oral tradition is made up, then they were corrupt from the offset....

If Paul, John and Simon weren't appointed by God, and made it up, then they've both been corrupt in the same manner.
I would assume that would also apply to Jesus since he was basically working from a liberal Pharisee position?
Don't worry still got the post from you on this topic, of debating Yeshua was not in any sect, and also fitted into the Essenes.

Yeshua challenged the Pharisees in Mark 7, about the oral tradition doing away with the Torah; thus he wasn't building on a faulty foundation. :innocent:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If oral tradition is made up, then they were corrupt from the offset....

If Paul, John and Simon weren't appointed by God, and made it up, then they've both been corrupt in the same manner.

Don't worry still got the post from you on this topic, of debating Yeshua was not in any sect, and also fitted into the Essenes.

Yeshua challenged the Pharisees in Mark 7, about the oral tradition doing away with the Torah; thus he wasn't building on a faulty foundation. :innocent:
First of all, that's quite an assumption that you have jumped to that the oral tradition was "made up". How could you possibly know that? Evidence please?

Secondly, if you don't recognize that Jesus was at least quite close to where some of the liberal Pharisees were coming from, then you obviously do not understand the Pharisees at all. They were more of a movement, and so far archaeologists have distinguished at least four different Pharisee sects. Jesus, with certainty, was operating from a Pharisee paradigm, but not the mainline group. In no way was Jesus an Essene, so that's simply a non-starter.

Jesus' argument with "the Pharisees" probably was an internal "family" argument, and they can be the harshest. Some of the liberal Pharisees did not agree with the mainline Pharisee group, and tended to be more open and inclusive. Now, whether Jesus actually saw himself as belonging to that group is impossible to tell, and he might not have, but what we do know about at least one element of liberal Pharisees, sometimes referred to as "love Pharisees", is that they embodied much of what he seems to have taught.

Jesus emphasis on scripture versus ritual, his meeting in the synagogue and doing one of the readings with his commentary is of the Pharisee tradition and not any other branch. Also, his belief in heaven and hell was of the Pharisees. Etc.
 
Top