The Heretical Crucifixion?

[Emproph]

How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus.

[Steven E. Webster]

Emproph,

I'm glad that you challenge this doctrine. In historic Christian thought there are several theories about atonement and the crucifixtion. The theory that the Fundamentalists seem to relish is the most awful, disgusting and irrational, in my opinion. Their theory of substitutionary atonement says that Jesus had to pay with his life to satisfy God's justice and atone for our sins.

Another theory puts the emphasis on God taking on human suffering through Jesus. According to Paul in Philippians Jesus voluntarily gave up his divinity and became human in order to suffer with us. In Eastern Orthodox theology Jesus became human in order that humans might become divine.

In Soulforce we speak of voluntary redemptive suffering--that's how we interpret our decisions to undergo arrest, for instance. The Equality Riders who begin their journey in a few days are engaging in voluntary redemptive suffering.

I would see Jesus as an example to us of voluntary redemptive suffering. Of course, there is still the famous "problem of evil"--why did God ever allow evil to exist in the world in the first place? God only knows and She ain't tellin' (that was the Biblical Job's answer).

Steven Webster

[Pablo Rafael]

How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus.

Patrick,

I know that when your name appears that I am going to have to think about something. (Isn't it a little early in the morning to force someone to think?)

I know that some people will think I have the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy of life. I strongly believe in the mystery of God. His/Her ways are are so far beyond our ways that we can fathom them only partially and imperfectly. However, I am fully content to have faith in God's work; I trust God much more than I trust myself or the reasoning of any human.

I think there are many questions unanswerable by human logic. I have a list of things to ask God when I get to heaven.(I had a friend of mine say that she hoped she died before I did, because I was going to tie up things at the gates of heaven asking endless questions.)

Some questions:
Why did God create people when He knew they would sin?
Why did Jesus have to die for us?
Why doesn't God intervene more directly in human afairs?
What does God need that we give Him?
Why don't ALL people come to faith?
Why couldn't God just make a pronouncement that all sins are forgiven?

I have no idea as to the answers to those questions. I am just content to let God have His way. To me it is summed up as "faith".

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[andrewlittle]

The liberation theologian, Jon Sobrino, posited that the starting point for Christian theology is in what event(s) you see as critical.

If you see salvation coming from the abysmal and cruel death of Jesus on the cross, it unavoidably means that you perceive God, at least to some extent, as a demanding "sin requires death" God. This would generally also mean that God is perceived as controlling.

If you see the message of Jesus as the critical factor, you perceive God to be loving and just.

If you see the resurrection of Christ as the central event, then you perceive God as the opportunist (not NEGATIVE) who defeats the powers of evil and the death - the concentraion is on hope of a better future or after-life.

Sobrino's thoughts, and I tend to agree, are not unlike Pablo's in which all of the events - Jesus's birth, life, message, death and resurrection - as critical, propelling us to have faith in a God who is present, but not controlling, caring, interactive, hopeful, and inclined strongly towards justice, mercy and love.

This, of course, is insanity - it requires recognizing an undefinable mystery of God that cannot be explained in human or scientific terms. I think that's why its called faith. Okay, but I'm insane.

[Emproph]

I'm glad that you challenge this doctrine.
I strongly believe in the mystery of God.
This, of course, is insanity - it requires recognizing an undefinable mystery of God that cannot be explained in human or scientific terms. I think that's why its called faith. Okay, but I'm insane.You people are delicious. :love:

[Joe Allen]

How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus.

It was a sin for the Pharisees to crucify Jesus; and that's why they demanded the Romans do it.

If you really analyze what happened, it was more like suicide by crucifixion. Jesus actually gave himself up when he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Many times, people tried to kill him in various ways. One was a mob tried to force him off of a cliff, he turned to face them and walked right through the crowd without them even seeing him.

Jesus became the total Passover, theologically speaking. While orthodox traditions don't accept what I believe as a somewhat educated theologian, I say that Jesus was actually crucified during the first evening of Passover and there were 2 Sabbath Days that week.

Every holy day in Israel was a Sabbath day, no matter what day of the week it occurred. The first day of Passover which began at sundown was a Sabbath. The first meal of Passover was the seder meal which one ate the meat of the Passover lamb that had been killed and cooked before the sunset.

In the NIV Study Bible which I have in my home office area, it is stated on the two pages showing where what happened during "Passion Week" and on what day it happened. The NIV folks said that nothing was recorded of happening on Wednesday of that week. But, for Jesus to have been in the grave three days and three nights as he prophesied about himself, he had to be crucified during the day on Thursday.

A general sacrifice was to be made once a year. The sacrifice did not actually remove a person's sin; it just postponed the penalty for it for a year. The Passover Lamb represented the 1st-born son of the family not being killed by the angel of death in Egypt. And, since the lamb for the passover (Seder) meal in Egypt had to be killed and cooked before the sunset, the tradition was still being followed in remembrance in 30 AD.

The Last Supper, aka the Lord's Supper, was a pre-Seder meal, although the meal was like a regular Seder meal and it took place on Wednesday evening. Jesus was arrested in the early hours of Thursday morning.

There are church songs and rituals which say Jesus' body was broken; but, while his body was bruised by the soldiers, no bones were broken. A lamb with broken bones was never approved for a Jewish sacrifice. Jesus' bruises were predicted in the OT testament.

My mind is wandering here a little bit: Some folks say the Jews and/or the Romans killed Christ. But, the Christ which dwelled in the body of Jesus was the Divine Son of God and it was impossible to kill God. Jesus gave up the Christ Spirit on the Cross so that his body would die. Christ was not put in the tomb, Jesus was. The reason that the women disciples did not finish taking care of Jesus' body was that it was the Day of Preparation for the 1st day of the Passover. They had to go home and get the meal ready before the sunset.

So Jesus' body was in the tomb, according to our calendar, Thursday night and all day Friday, Friday night and all day Saturday, AND Saturday night with the Christ Spirit reuniting with the body of Jesus in the tomb early in the morning on Sunday, the first day of the Calendar week. And, that's when the resurrection took place.

Jesus' death was the final sacrifice that God the Father required; and that fulfilled the Old Covenant Law.

[keltic63]

The theory that the Fundamentalists seem to relish is the most awful, disgusting and irrational, in my opinion. Their theory of substitutionary atonement says that Jesus had to pay with his life to satisfy God's justice and atone for our sins.


I recall many Sunday School lessons from my childhood in which we were told to "look what you did to Jesus!"



Some questions:
Why did God create people when He knew they would sin?
Why did Jesus have to die for us?
Why doesn't God intervene more directly in human afairs?
What does God need that we give Him?
Why don't ALL people come to faith?
Why couldn't God just make a pronouncement that all sins are forgiven?


add one more for me: If Jesus death was a payment for sin, to whom was the debt owed? who made the payment, God the Father, or Jesus? Who collected? was it Satan? Is God not powerful enough to overcome sin and evil, and so a payment was required?


If you see the message of Jesus as the critical factor, you perceive God to be loving and just.


I do believe that the message that Jesus taught was so revolutionary that it threatened the political and religious powers of that culture, so much so, that it brought about his death.
I also believe that too many christians focus on the substitutionary atonement theory, or the resurrection, or various combinations thereof, and totally miss the message that Christ brought to us.

[nmwolfboy]

Okay, make room in the sandbox – I wanna play too!

First off, let me confess some of my own basic assumptions:

I don’t accept the concept of substitutionary atonement as it’s usually outlined by, say, Fundamentalist Christians.
While I view sin as real, I see it as a turning away from God and not primarily as some inborn moral failing that requires our shame and self-loathing.
The capacity to sin exists because God wanted creatures that had the capacity to choose to love Her/Him and that required free will. Therefore, we have the ability to turn toward God and embody His plan for us, or to turn away and serve the idols of our own making.
Jesus, the Christ, as portrayed in the Bible and historical Christian tradition is the only human who has been without sin and who perfectly embodied God. I understand ‘without sin’ to mean that he never turned away from God in thought, word, or deed.


So, on to considering Emproph’s thread-starting question.

How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

In order for any creation of God’s to have the ability to choose to love Him/Her, that creation needed to have free will – which would necessarily allow for the ability to turn away from God. Looking at the first Genesis creation myth, what catches my imagination is that God didn’t just install the free will program into them from the get go. Instead (to continue the software analogy – please forgive me) He provided them with a dialog box in the form of the Tree of Knowledge, and cautioned them against accessing that particular software. When they did eat the forbidden fruit, it was like choosing yes in answer to the dialog box’s question: “Are you sure you want to do this?” They ate, the free will program installed fully, and they had to leave the garden, maybe because in order for free will to work properly, it needs the whole world with all its potential for choices other than God.

Fast forward to the Christ’s sacrifice.

Christ was crucified by an oppressive government, with the encouragement & insistence of the religious authorities of His day. His core messages were to love God beyond all else and to love each other as ourselves. Christ’s refusal to turn away either in word or deed from this message of the God He embodied directly threatened the underpinnings of their power over others. The bible makes it clear that Jesus knew that his death would be the outcome demanded by the Romans and the Pharisees/Sadducees.

My understanding of the crucifixion continues to evolve and change. Right now I don’t see it as primarily a Paschal sacrifice, or a triumph over death. Instead I’m seeing it as an example of an unrelenting adherence to living & proclaiming an empowering love that can change the world, even when doing so could require knowingly facing death.

Then again, I’m just as insane as Andrew, though I do prefer the term ‘mad’ to insane. Good thing there’s faith, huh?

[Steven E. Webster]

Jesus' death was the final sacrifice that God the Father required; and that fulfilled the Old Covenant Law.

Joe,
I know that this is Christian doctrine according to some Christians, but I think it is a doctrine worth challenging. What you seem to assume is that God is somehow bound to the primitive and irrational system of animal/blood sacrifice. Jesus' violent death was required in order to bring about atonement. I think there are biblical as well as rational reasons to challenge this view. Even the Old Testament challenges the idea that animal/blood sacrifice is required for atonement:

[6] With what shall I approach the LORD, Do homage to God on high? Shall I approach him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old?

[7] Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, With myriads of streams of oils? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, The fruit of my body for my sins?

[8] "He has told you, O man, what is good, And what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice And to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your God;"

I believe this teaching from the Hebrew Prophet Micah is exactly what Jesus' teachings were about.

Who says God ever took any satisfaction in people cutting the throats of lambs? (I know, certain texts in the Bible say so, but I don't believe that to be literally true. "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so.") Prophets like Micah challenged that idea for good reasons.

I agree that Scriptures and our liturgy (Holy Communion) use the imagery of blood sacrifice, but that is not the same as making the claim that it is literally the case that God was bound by the ancient Hebrew Sacrificial system to provide a blameless victim to be tortured to death. To believe this literally is just not rational and leads to a very inhuman, inhumane and un-Godly theology in my opinion. (One has to ask why the Christian Right seems so supportive of the Bush Administration's use of torture?)

Jesus did not come to teach us how to satisfy the sacrificial system, he came to teach us "to do justice And to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your God;"

I would rather focus on the doctrine of the incarnation--in Jesus God herself became human and took on our sufferings in order to bring about the atonement, literally the at-one-ment, the unity of humanity and the divine.

I'm liturgical enough to appreciate the fact that we are in the season of Lent--an appropriate time to reflect on these subjects.

Joe, your theory about a "Christ-spirit" separating from and re-uniting with the body of Jesus the man seems to me to be "heretical" and unbiblical (what are your scripture citations for this theory?). From the viewpoint of Scripture there is no separate existence of body and spirit. Jesus was a unity--someone who was both entirely God and entirely human. Also, Jesus's spirit did not go to heaven leaving his body behind according to scripture--his resurrected body rose into the air and up to a literal heaven literally *up there* somewhere--as will we all according to the scriptural view. I don't think we can understand resurrection literally that way any more, but that was the biblical view.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

My understanding of the crucifixion continues to evolve and change. Right now I don’t see it as primarily a Paschal sacrifice, or a triumph over death. Instead I’m seeing it as an example of an unrelenting adherence to living & proclaiming an empowering love that can change the world, even when doing so could require knowingly facing death.


I like this view point. I don't see much wrong with it.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus.
It was a sin for the Pharisees to crucify Jesus; and that's why they demanded the Romans do it.

If you really analyze what happened, it was more like suicide by crucifixion. Jesus actually gave himself up when he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.
I’m saying that someone like you or me had to kill him.

For Jesus as Christ to even allow that to happen makes him/God complicit if not responsible for that sin.

There’s no way around it.

God created sin.

[Steven E. Webster]

Mr. Webster, how much formal graduate university level courses do you have in Theological and Historical Studies of the Bible? I have over 30 semester credits in that field and 22 undergrad hours in the Bible, too.

Jesus' Christ spirit left the human body of Jesus before Jesus literally died. And at the moment of the Resurrection three days later, the Christ spirit rejoined the human body. Jesus told the disciples he was not a just a "spirit" because he had flesh and bones.

40 days after the Resurrection, Jesus the Christ, in the glorified body of flesh and bone, ascended up to heaven. You are definitely confused in understanding what I wrote in the first place.

Joe, since you ask, I have earned a Masters Degree in Religious Studies from a Roman Catholic School (Edgewood College in Madison Wisconsin), before that I earned a Bachelor's Degree with a major in Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I happen to be United Methodist and by "liturgy" I thought I was referring to Holy Communion as it is practiced ecumenically. In both my undergraduate and graduate days I studied Scripture (I'm comfortable doing my own research in Greek and Hebrew). If I were to describe myself, I guess I would say that I am a "liberal Protestant" with a very healthy respect for the Christian and Jewish traditions, as well as a willingness to engage people of other faiths with respect.

All that said, I was merely pointing out that your notion of there being a "Christ Spirit" that was somehow separate from the human Jesus comes mighty close to one of the early "heresies" of Gnosticism. (I put the word "heresy" in quotes because, being a liberal, I don't really like the idea of people having their opinions branded "heretical," much less getting burned at the stake for them--but at the same time there are some opinions that are at variance with "mainstream" Christianity.) The "heresy" in this case is the idea that God really did not become human and did not really suffer and die; that God's spirit or the "Christ spirit" as you call it was beyond suffering and death and so that spirit was not with Jesus the human when he suffered and died and was buried. The Apostles' Creed was a statement that sought to deny this "heresy." It says (in part), "I believe...in Jesus Christ [God's] only Son, our Lord, who was born...,suffered...and died...and...rose again from the dead...ascended into heaven, from whence he shall judge the living and the dead."

Now, the point of all this is not that Jesus' suffering was some cruel act of sadism by a perverse God. Jesus was God herself choosing freely to join us in our sufferings, ultimately with the aim of freeing us from sin, death and suffering.

Now, that said, we still don't have a very satisfactory answer to the question why there is sin and suffering in the world in the first place. The Bible and Christian theology hasn't come up with very many satisfactory answers there--except that humans themselves choose to inflict an awful lot of it. Pablo's view is closest to what I understand to be the biblical Job's answer to the problem of suffering--"It's a mystery, we just have to trust God anyway."

During Lent I do reflect that God, at least, joined us in our sufferings. I can hear the words in Handel's Messiah, "He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. (Isaiah 53:3) He gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to them that plucked off the hair [Ouch!]: He hid not His face from shame and spitting. (Isaiah 50:6) Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him. (Isaiah 53:4-5) And with His stripes we are healed. "

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I see a connection between this aspect of Christian tradition and the Soulforce (or Gandhian) idea of "voluntary redemptive suffering." Gandhi, a Hindu educated in Victorian England, was deeply influenced by the New Testament account of Jesus' life and teachings.

Steven Webster

[bryanf]

Ok lets not get off in comparing degrees or studies or anything boys and girls. I am sure there are plenty of us here who have quite a bit of former education in this field or a field that relates to it.

I just wanted to chirp in just as reminder that there is several different forms of the substitionary atonement. What has been primarily denounced in here has been the view of the Penal Substitionary Atonement. A good critique on it from a conservative yet college level book is Recovering the Scandal of The Cross, by Joel Green & Mark Baker (ISBN: 0830815716). So anyhow lets be careful about throwing the whole substitionary view out because a certain branch of it is; well in my humblest of opinions a little off. Instead of saying it is penal we may advocate a view that we pass through the curse of sin that brings death into life. So to speak Christ is our Great Ark where we pass from the old world which shall be destroyed into the new world. Anyhow that is one view of substitionary atonement which is not Penal in nature.

And the discussion of what is heresy and what is not is always a tricky one. It really goes back to our view of is there right teachings and the authority in the Church (which ask to what degree is the Spirit & the Bride interacting or one with each other).

But I will admit Joe that your statement does have some markings of the gnostic teaching. But as I have always said, if we run our mouths long enough then we are going to say something not exactly right. I find this to be particularly true when we talk about God. Lord knows I have made some rather starch heretical statements at times unintentionally.

[andrewlittle]

I do believe that the message that Jesus taught was so revolutionary that it threatened the political and religious powers of that culture, so much so, that it brought about his death.
I also believe that too many christians focus on the substitutionary atonement theory, or the resurrection, or various combinations thereof, and totally miss the message that Christ brought to us.

Emproph: I’m saying that someone like you or me had to kill him.

If we miss or gloss over the message, both of Christ and the crucifixion, we run the risk of repeating history - actually, and I think that's what both Keltic and Emproph are saying, I think we have done so many, many times.

"The Jews" didn't crucify Jesus - certain people did, some being Jews who were collusiing with a wide range of people from those in power to those in the streets. People who held positions of religious power, privilege, prestige and, I think, quite a measure of personal profit, sought to protect and secure their interests by whipping up the emotions of the masses and ingratiating themselves with and manipulating the worldly powers of government. Good thing we don't see this repeated in history - or in the present - isn't it?

The person who was the object of their wrath was the One who challenged the bases upon which their power rested - their manipulation of religious belief for self-interest.

We (read:the culture to which we belong) continue to crucify many in the name of religion or with worldly power wrapped in the tunic of religious rhetoric. LGBT folks, along with the poor, indigenous peoples all over the world, and people of many other faiths are being crucified as we speak - all in the manipulated names of God and Jesus.

The crucifixion, as one part of the message of Christ, shows the risk of being true to our beliefs and speaking from positions of being counter-cultural. And it shows the risk of being part of a group or segment of society that is deemed expendable by those in power - expendable in the battle for more wealth, more control, more power.

In that respect, the lot of GLBT people is indelibly intertwined with the lots of the majority of the world's populations - Mayan Indians in Southern Mexico and Central America, Africans of virtually every nationality, Indigenous Americans, religious minorities in just about every country, Pacific Islanders, aborigines of Australasia, and ... well, the list can go on and on.

The message of the resurrection is multi-facetted. It does point to a "better future" in the hereafter - but that aspect has been used by the Church and worldly powers to say, "It's divine to accept your lot in this world and hope for freedom and justice in heaven." It's been a way of keeping people in their place, so the church can be complicit in the idolatry of hegemony.

It also - and I believe this message is integral to Christ's birth, life, message and ministry - points to a better life here-and-now by standing up against the powers of culture. For one, Subcommandante Marcos, of the Mexican Zapatista movement of the Mayan peoples, realized this when he reached out to all oppressed peoples to form something akin to a "union of the crucified".

Battles for hegemony are waged on many fronts and, as long as those fronts can be kept isolated, the war is heavily in the favor of those members of culture who seek to dominate and profit. If, however, the crucified of this world can join ranks with each other - setting aside their own specific interests/issues for the collective good of all crucified people - the message of Christ can win out.

Therein comes the power of resurrection - not just for a better future "out their" in the realm of heaven, but in the resurrection of the power of love and justice for all of God's children right here, right now. When that happens, look out! The Kingdom of Heaven, the Realm of God's Love, will be upon us. Right now, it's near, it's close - but it remains Not Yet.

IF the great crowd of the crucified people can link arms and stand in defiance of the powers of oppression, that crowd would represent something like 85-90% of the world's population - the vaste majority of God's people. There's power in the Message of Christ for moving from crucifixion to resurrection in the power of God.

[bryanf]

Since we are on the subject of the atonement and we are nonviolent group.

Has anyone here read:

The NonViolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver (ISBN: 0802849083)

If so what are your thoughts on it. And what elements do you think might be practical as brothers and sisters to each other here at soulforce and our goal to reaching out to the world?

Another good book that might be worth discussing, though it primarily builds on a high view of the Eucharist, is Torture & Eucharist: Theology, Politics, & The Body of Christ by William T. Cavanaugh (ISBN: 0631211993). Honestly this is the book that turned me into a pacifist. At of 7 years of bible college & seminary, this hands down is the best if not one of the hardest books I have everread. Actually I have a few essays I have written in the past that came from being inspired from this book. Most of them actually dealing with the similarities between the methods & praxis Ex-Gay movement and those whom use torture. If you guys and gals like, I might could post it sometime.

[andrewlittle]

I, for one, would like. Thanks

[suzer1013]

Andy -- re: your post #15 above:

Spot on! Another one of those moments where I think "I wish I'd said that."

Thank you. :)

Susan

[Jamie McDaniel]

I was just reading one of the Blogging from the Buses (http://www.soulforce.org/blogs) entries and was reminded of this thread. Rider Emily Van Kley shares four things that stood out to her in their nonviolence training.

4. Veteran civil-rights worker Reverend Phil Lawson’s warning us that the traditional Christian theology in which God sacrifices God’s only son for our sins may well validate violence as a way of solving problems.

[matthewspeed]

I believe that the purpose of the crucifixion was to make atonement for our sins. The bible says we were born into sin. that is very clear. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. Jesus took on the sins of all mankind. Through His death and ressurection, we too, die to sin and and will be resurected to be with our Heavenly Father. That is love! That is why the God of Christianity is like on other. He came to earth in the form of a man and suffered with us and died for us. Read the old testament. There was always a blood sacrifice for our sins! Jesus was the final sacrifice, once and for all! Praise God!! This gay man praises God for his awsome love.

This theology, that is shared by the fundamentalists, I agree with. Jesus died for our sins!! I am so greatful, my human words of thankfulness seem so inadequate in comparison to what our God has done for us.

[kara speltz]

I was just reading one of the Blogging from the Buses (http://www.soulforce.org/blogs) entries and was reminded of this thread. Rider Emily Van Kley shares four things that stood out to her in their nonviolence training.


Quote:
4. Veteran civil-rights worker Reverend Phil Lawson’s warning us that the traditional Christian theology in which God sacrifices God’s only son for our sins may well validate violence as a way of solving problems.





I've also heard Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr speak of that issue. This is a part of theology I've rarely seen explored and I tend to agree. I am of the thinking that we humans can never comprehend God - that to do so is to attempt to be God's equal. I'm reminded of the version of the creation story that I shared in another thread. When Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge God breaks into tears and says to them, I wanted you to know me with your hearts, but now you will only know me with your heads and with that his tears flood the garden and Adam and Eve are washed away in the flood.

My God is not a vindictive God, but a God that forgives and forgives and forgives.

kara

[Daniel]

The whole idea of a Heretical Crucifixion is, in and of itself, rather oxymoronic. After all, a thousand or so years of Christian martyrs have gone to their deaths defending just the notion that 'some one must pay' because 'someone did pay.' Nothing heretical about that from that perspective.

This old notion of the crucifixion- if I can put it that way- may be philosophically suspect in our modern age as a result of the legacy of Freud and those who followed him: we have come to understand that it is by efforts that we make ourselves that lasting change is possible. Or as I tell myself when I get cranky: "Daniel- no one can sit on the cushion for you. You have to calm your own mind."

I have come to see the crucifixion as an extreme example of projection in the form of an assault on the body (and of course, the word projection is a modern term). As such then, the message of the Jesus and the crucifixion- which leads to the resurrection- is that what is Real cannot be destroyed. As A Course in Miracles asserts:

"Teach only love, for that is what you are."

I find this a very compelling concept, for it seems to be one of the central themes of nonviolence. For if we endeavor to see that the person who expouses anti-gay rhetoric is a Child of God (which is an act of love), and is projecting-onto ie crucifying gay persons because of misinformation or ignorance, one is teaching that person, and one's self, the truth that our love for one another is Love.

[u-dog]

I am familiar with the notion that the doctrine of the crucifixion is a kind of divine child abuse and, frankly, its shallow.

The crucifixion doesn't stand by itself. As Christians, our salvation isn't accomplished by Christ's crucifixion alone but rather by his crucifixion AND his RESURRECTION. The two are one. Christ submits to death on behalf of the whole of humanity (actually the whole creation) and destroys it on behalf of the whole world.

Death is a reality for all of us. It is universal, unavoidable and immutable. The good news in Christ is that Love is more powerful than death. One man giving up life results in abundant life for all. The crucifixion/resurrection of Christ reveals the nature of God (God is the one who answers all crucifixion with Resurrection) The crucifixion/resurrection reveals the TRUE nature of the universe and human experience. Christine is experiencing the crucifixion of break-up but God waits with a resurrection. My friend suffers the crucifixion of her child's cancer but God waits with a resurrection for the child and for the mother. Many of us suffer the crucifixion of oppression, but God is working behind the scenes to bring the resurrection of full equality.

The Equality Riders have given up safety and security and comfort and submitted themselves to the crucifixion of being hated and opposed in order to PARTICIPATE in the resurrection that God is working out for GLBTQ Youth.

To say that God (the Father) throws his son to the lions and is guilty of divine child abuse or violence is a twisting of Trinitarian language and belief. Jesus is not only the Son of God, but IS HIMSELF God and makes himself vulnerable to human hatred willingly ... in order to transform it utterly. the Equality Riders are participating in that Miracle of Death and Resurrection and it is a beautiful and admirable thing! God Bless them all !

Dave

[J.D.]

Is God not powerful enough to overcome sin and evil, and so a payment was required?

The issue in the matter here isn't the power of God, it is the nature of God.

God is completely and totaly holy, absent of sin throughout his very nature. Because he is so holy, he cannot be with anything is sinful because it goes against his righteous nature.
That is why "the wages of sin is death." We are destined for a fiery seperation from our maker if we don't accept Jesus's atoning sacrafice covering our sin. Without accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives, we cannot fellowship with God because of our sin, and therefore cannot spend eternity with him.
That is what makes the sacrafice of our savior so amazing! He was willing to die just so we could be with him!
So don't look at this as an example of limiting God's power...what this is really all about is his love, compassion by giving us all a fantastic second chance, and the realization of exactly who God is.

-JD

[kara speltz]

The issue in the matter here isn't the power of God, it is the nature of God.

God is completely and totaly holy, absent of sin throughout his very nature. Because he is so holy, he cannot be with anything is sinful because it goes against his righteous nature.
That is why "the wages of sin is death." We are destined for a fiery seperation from our maker if we don't accept Jesus's atoning sacrafice covering our sin. Without accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives, we cannot fellowship with God because of our sin, and therefore cannot spend eternity with him.
That is what makes the sacrafice of our savior so amazing! He was willing to die just so we could be with him!
So don't look at this as an example of limiting God's power...what this is really all about is his love, compassion by giving us all a fantastic second chance, and the realization of exactly who God is.

-JD

Dear JD: A thought to remember when you're posting here is not everyone here is Christian and that instead of posting something as fact, it creates more dialogue to acknowledge it as your belief. I am also a Christian, but I don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you. I believe that our loving God welcomes us all to the kingdom. On one level I recognize Jesus as my savior and on another, I question whether that is really what God had in mind. I absolutely do not believe that any human being is capable of comprehending the mind of God. To suggest that you can to me reeks of arrogance and even more putting yourself on an equal with God. One of the things I appreciate about being Catholic is that although the Church has been guilty of that same arrogance, it at least adheres to the understanding of mystery.

[J.D.]

I am also a Christian, but I don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you. I believe that our loving God welcomes us all to the kingdom. On one level I recognize Jesus as my savior and on another, I question whether that is really what God had in mind. I absolutely do not believe that any human being is capable of comprehending the mind of God.

So if I am to understand correctly, you are a Christian, but don't entirely accept Christ as your savior. There is some other purpose or plan for him instead?

Interesting viewpoint...might I ask for more details if you are interested in sharing...perhaps an indepth conversation if I am so fortunate.

Also, I don't see the necessity of avoiding concrete statements. Christ did come. He did die. He did rise again. There isn't any other way to put that. I do not intend to offend people, but is it not also offensive to force myself to subdue my own religious freedoms on a religous weboard designed for religious discussion?

I would also like to clarify your statement concerning my "arrogance" of contemplating the mind of God. Nowhere did I state that I presume to be eqaul to him nor to his intelligence, or even a complete understanding. But stating the holiness of God is basic, foundational Christian doctrine. In no way does stating such a comment put me in the class of a all knowing saint, rather it puts me in the class of fundamental Christian. I apologize if my "arrogance" offended you.

I look forward to your reply.

-JD

[keltic63]

So if I am to understand correctly, you are a Christian, but don't entirely accept Christ as your savior. There is some other purpose or plan for him instead?

Interesting viewpoint...might I ask for more details if you are interested in sharing...perhaps an indepth conversation if I am so fortunate.

Also, I don't see the necessity of avoiding concrete statements. Christ did come. He did die. He did rise again. There isn't any other way to put that. I do not intend to offend people, but is it not also offensive to force myself to subdue my own religious freedoms on a religous weboard designed for religious discussion?

I would also like to clarify your statement concerning my "arrogance" of contemplating the mind of God. Nowhere did I state that I presume to be eqaul to him nor to his intelligence, or even a complete understanding. But stating the holiness of God is basic, foundational Christian doctrine. In no way does stating such a comment put me in the class of a all knowing saint, rather it puts me in the class of fundamental Christian. I apologize if my "arrogance" offended you.

I look forward to your reply.

-JD

Moderator's note:

J.D. Please be careful about putting words in someone else's mouth. There are statements in the above post that Kara absolutely did not say in this thread. You have twisted her words, then argued against them. Kara made a clear statement of her faith in God, and never mentioned the holiness of God.

[keltic63]

The issue in the matter here isn't the power of God, it is the nature of God.
if that was what we were discussing, you might make that argument. However, I was discussing the power of God.

God is completely and totaly holy, absent of sin throughout his very nature. Because he is so holy, he cannot be with anything is sinful because it goes against his righteous nature. I don't believe I made any comment about God's holiness in my original post in this thread. Are you creating a new argument?

That is why "the wages of sin is death." We are destined for a fiery seperation from our maker if we don't accept Jesus's atoning sacrafice covering our sin. Repent or Burn? I guess fear and threats can motivate some people.
Without accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives, we cannot fellowship with God because of our sin, and therefore cannot spend eternity with him. I prefer to think about Jesus' question to Peter as the test of faith. Afterall, it's good enough for Jesus, right?

That is what makes the sacrafice of our savior so amazing! He was willing to die just so we could be with him!
So don't look at this as an example of limiting God's power...what this is really all about is his love, compassion by giving us all a fantastic second chance, and the realization of exactly who God is.

-JD

what you failed to answer is this: If our salvation had to be bought with a price, to whom did God make the payment? If God has to pay someone to save us, then there must be some limit on the power of God.

For me, the love is Jesus coming to earth and teaching us the message God has for us: Love God, Love each other. It's so simple, it's radical, and obviously controversial enough that Jesus was killed because of it.

[Pablo Rafael]

I absolutely do not believe that any human being is capable of comprehending the mind of God.

Kara,

EXACTLY! If only all Christians could have this humble attitude and realize that they don't know everything. The arrogance that so many Christians have believing that they have the "true" doctrine and everyone else is wrong, is a great stumbling block to God's work.

If God is understandable with my limited human reasoning, He isn't really that great at all. On the contrary I believe that He is so much greater than I can comprehend.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[J.D.]

Dear JD: On one level I recognize Jesus as my savior and on another, I question whether that is really what God had in mind.

I apologize for twisting words on the forum here, as that was never my intent. My intent was to understand kara's sentence above. It seemed to me that she was unsettled or unsure of what she believed in, because she questioned the purpose of Christ.

My apologies all the same, towards you especialy and profusely kara.

As for your questions, keltic.

(I haven't learned enough about muti-quoting, so bear with me for a moment)
--
keltic said:"if that was what we were discussing, you might make that argument. However, I was discussing the power of God."

ketic said:"If our salvation had to be bought with a price, to whom did God make the payment? If God has to pay someone to save us, then there must be some limit on the power of God."

The reason that the nature of God was brought up by myself is simply that is the correct view in this discussion. I realize that the original beginning of the discussion was God's power, but you must understand that this is my weak attempt to shine a light on something I believe that the board is looking over.
Simply, God is holy and can't be with something or someone that isn't holy. We are all sinful and therefore cannot be with God. The "price that needed to be paid" that you continually mention, then, doesn't work like a home equity loan you have to pay off at the bank. It is the sacrafice God has called for since the beginning of sin in this world. Blood must be shed for sin to be forgiven, because God cannont be with sin. The absolutely amazing thing is that Christ's blood was great enough to cover all the sin that has ever happened and will ever happen.
So in view of things from that perspective, you can understand why I am not relating this to God's power. This is really about his very nature...the essence of who he is: he is holy.
God's nature is the reason that a price had to be paid.

keltic said: "Repent or Burn? I guess fear and threats can motivate some people."

When Jesus said to the people that he was "the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the father except through me." (JN 14:6) that was an incredibly intolerant comment. He was crazy enough to say that things had to be a certain way, and not just anyone can get into heaven. What he said was that it doesn't matter what you do or what you believe, the way to God is through Jesus.
SO, if there is a certain way TO God, then there is also a certain way that doesn't lead to God. After all, "...wide is the narrow gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." The road to destruction is the lake of fire, mentioned in Revelation 20:15. "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." It was originally designed for Satan and his angels, but those who live in sin and haven't accepted Christ's atonement cannot be with God, and must be seperated from him. Jesus described this enternal seperation from God in Matthew 8:12, saying in his parable that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So you may decide to view it as a threat, but I would see it as a warning and a sign pointing in a certain direction, a "take heed" moment if you will.

Thanks,
-JD

[keltic63]

The reason that the nature of God was brought up by myself is simply that is the correct view in this discussion. I realize that the original beginning of the discussion was God's power, but you must understand that this is my weak attempt to shine a light on something I believe that the board is looking over.

Thank you for the apology JD.

Correct view: in your opinion.


Micah 6:6-8
What Does the LORD Require?

6"With what shall I come before the LORD,
and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
8He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?


This is one of the reasons that I believe the idea of substitutionary atonement is in error. To me, these verses tell us that God is not interested in the shedding of blood for the atonement of sins.

[andrewlittle]

If I may, I'm going to relate my response to something you said in another thread. I think, at least loosely, they're related.

In the "Does the Bible..." thread, you wrote:
I am also troubled by the general thought process of "translating" the Bible through our modern concepts and ideas. We cannot, and should not, ever compromise the exact literacy of the Bible. By doing so, we abandon the very foundation of the Christian belief. Personal decision on when the Bible is literate and when it isn't is one of the most dangerous roads a Christian will ever embark on.
Once we accept the fact that parts of the Bible aren't literal (besides the obvious parts where Christ is telling a parable, for example), who's to say that any of it is? After all, you cannot build a house on a methaphorical foundation.

And then, in this thread, you wrote:
That is why "the wages of sin is death." We are destined for a fiery seperation from our maker if we don't accept Jesus's atoning sacrafice covering our sin. Without accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives, we cannot fellowship with God because of our sin, and therefore cannot spend eternity with him.
That is what makes the sacrafice of our savior so amazing! He was willing to die just so we could be with him!
So don't look at this as an example of limiting God's power...what this is really all about is his love, compassion by giving us all a fantastic second chance, and the realization of exactly who God is.

In response, please understand that I am NOT saying you should not believe what you are compelled to believe. I AM saying that what you believe in this particular regard is not necessarily a central tenet of Christianity, and it is one that is derived - not originally embodied in scripture.

I am challenged by the thought that the process of translating should not be done through our "modern concepts and ideas". Unless your are referring to "modernism", modern is something that has always been.

At any point in time, a concept or idea is modern if it is occurring in real time. That is to say that, when Paul wrote, he was writing and processing through concepts and ideas that were modern at that time and place. As is always true, what is now considered old was once modern, and what we consider modern will be old in relatively short order.

That being said, traditional interpretation was, at one time, modern interpretation that occurred though extant concepts and ideas. If one will rejects modern interpretation or translation processes, then one would also have to reject the traditional - since all have been modern at some time. If one accepts traditional interpretations, then modern would also need to be accepted as legitimate.

As you pointed out in the "Does the Bible..." thread, a way around this is to consider what the original language said, of course at the same time trying to determine what that language said to the reader at that same time, relative to their modern experiences and circumstances.

As a case in point, let us consider "atoning sacrifice". I will tell you up front that I consider that concept to be more modern than the Greek texts - it was a concept that arose in a time later than the original writing and was, therefore, a modern construction.

The original text, in all places were more modern translations use "atoning sacrifice" (1 John 2:2 and 4:10) had the word ilasmos, a noun which means "means by which sins are forgiven". Since that word is, in and of itself, absent any particular concept of sacrifice (or any other descriptor for that matter), one is left to wonder how the two concepts became intertwined.

That occurred in the Latin Vulgate, which was the source of the KJV's "propitiation", since it used the latin word propitiatio to translate ilasmos. Tradition gave the Greek word the added concept of sacrificial atonement, a tradition that began centuries after the original writing. That tradition is based on attitudes and circumstances - concepts and ideas - that were, at that time, modern.

Additionally, the word ilasmos is not preceded by a definite article, which means that even translating it as "THE means by which sins are forgiven" is inconsistent with the text. "A means by which sins are forgiven" is a truer translation.

Now, I am not forcing you to accept this interpretation, nor saying that you cannot hold your opinion. I am saying, however, that believing that all Christians should hold your interpretaion as correct is an arrogance - a modern arrogance at that.

[J.D.]

Those group of verses explain that God doesn't DESIRE sacrafice, but that doesn't mean the blood of the sacrafices was in vain.

Look at the first sin in the Garden of Eden...even then God killed an innocent lamb to cover Adam and Eve of their nakedness. Look at the directions from God to sacrafice to him for many reasons, and most specifically for sin. The atoning sacrafice once a year for the Jewish people is just one of the many pronouncements of God, so that his people would be forgiven.

We don't need to continue those sacrafices anymore because Jesus Christ paid the all time sacrafice. That was his entire purpose for coming down, and that is the crux of the Christian faith. We are saved "by grace through faith" (EPH 2:8-9). The grace of God to sacrafice for us, and the faith to believe that he did it and that we can be forgiven.

I am beginning to become somewhat curious...why do you believe Jesus came down in the first place? Why did he die? What of the prophecies in Psalm 28 and Isaiah that talk specifically of his crucifixion? Why would he need to rise again?

Thanks,
-JD

[keltic63]

I am beginning to become somewhat curious...why do you believe Jesus came down in the first place? Why did he die? What of the prophecies in Psalm 28 and Isaiah that talk specifically of his crucifixion? Why would he need to rise again?

Thanks,
-JD

are you here to accuse?

[J.D.]

are you here to accuse?

AGH! I didn't accuse you keltic! At least, I sure didn't meant to...

I asked you some questions, mainly because I don't understand your viewpoint. I have been asking everyone questions the past couple of days, and for the most part I have heard a lot of enlightening responses.

I ferverntly apologize for anything in my past post that was accusive towards you. But please understand that my intent is to understand your viewpoint on Jesus. Why was he here if not to die for me and you? I just want to understand where you are coming from. That is all.

Apologies,
-JD

PS. I am sorry that my comment on the other thread was offensive. My purpose for that last sentence was only to say that I didn't believe arguing would get anywhere. It would be the same if I was on a weboard run by anti-gay people. That was my purpose in the statement, and it was not meant to be reflective of this weboard or its quality. I for one have very enjoyed my short time here.

[keltic63]

AGH! I didn't accuse you keltic! At least, I sure didn't meant to...

I asked you some questions, mainly because I don't understand your viewpoint. I have been asking everyone questions the past couple of days, and for the most part I have heard a lot of enlightening responses.

I ferverntly apologize for anything in my past post that was accusive towards you. But please understand that my intent is to understand your viewpoint on Jesus. Why was he here if not to die for me and you? I just want to understand where you are coming from. That is all.

Apologies,
-JD

PS. I am sorry that my comment on the other thread was offensive. My purpose for that last sentence was only to say that I didn't believe arguing would get anywhere. It would be the same if I was on a weboard run by anti-gay people. That was my purpose in the statement, and it was not meant to be reflective of this weboard or its quality. I for one have very enjoyed my short time here.

I have a friend who loves quotes by Oscar Wilde. he likes the quote that says "Manners before Morals."

while you may be convinced of your beliefs and have every right to hold them, your tone is not very mannerly. there are ways to ask questions and make statements that do not insult or accuse those you are speaking to. You'll get the information you're looking for if you keep that in mind.

[J.D.]

perhaps you would be willing to show my wrongdoing in my manner of tone.

Then I will be able to avoid future mishaps with the same issues.

I would still like to understand you view...is there some reason that you don't want to talk about it? If you just don't want to, then that is fine, but say you don't so I am not left hanging for an answer.:lol:


Thanks,
-JD

[keltic63]

OK, I've done a multiquote here to try to answer why I find your tone offensive, even if that is not your intent. Truthfully, I don't think you are aware of how offensive some of your statements have been. There is the additional problem of reading words that have no visual clues associated with them; if we were talking in person, the same words coming from your mouth may not be offensive because of your body language as well as the tone of your voice.




keltic said:"if that was what we were discussing, you might make that argument. However, I was discussing the power of God."

ketic said:"If our salvation had to be bought with a price, to whom did God make the payment? If God has to pay someone to save us, then there must be some limit on the power of God."

The reason that the nature of God was brought up by myself is simply that is the correct view in this discussion. I realize that the original beginning of the discussion was God's power, but you must understand that this is my weak attempt to shine a light on something I believe that the board is looking over.

This post implies that you have some authority, some revelation that others here do not, and not only do you have this revelation, you feel it is superior to all others.

keltic said: "Repent or Burn? I guess fear and threats can motivate some people."

When Jesus said to the people that he was "the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the father except through me." (JN 14:6) that was an incredibly intolerant comment. He was crazy enough to say that things had to be a certain way, and not just anyone can get into heaven. What he said was that it doesn't matter what you do or what you believe, the way to God is through Jesus.
SO, if there is a certain way TO God, then there is also a certain way that doesn't lead to God. After all, "...wide is the narrow gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." The road to destruction is the lake of fire, mentioned in Revelation 20:15. "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." It was originally designed for Satan and his angels, but those who live in sin and haven't accepted Christ's atonement cannot be with God, and must be seperated from him. Jesus described this enternal seperation from God in Matthew 8:12, saying in his parable that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So you may decide to view it as a threat, but I would see it as a warning and a sign pointing in a certain direction, a "take heed" moment if you will.

Thanks,
-JD

For as many verses like these, there are just as many in which we find a loving, welcoming, inclusive Christ. Your choice of these scriptures indicates to me that your brand of Christianity depends on the exclusion of some people.



I am beginning to become somewhat curious...why do you believe Jesus came down in the first place? Why did he die? What of the prophecies in Psalm 28 and Isaiah that talk specifically of his crucifixion? Why would he need to rise again?

Thanks,
-JD

In this post, I sense that because I (and others here) do not have the same beliefs about atonement and sacrifice as you, that we are to be considered somewhat "less" than you. You don't say this specifically. Is this the first time you've met christians who hold views that are different from yours?

AGH! I didn't accuse you keltic! At least, I sure didn't meant to...



that's my point, your words are accusatory and you aren't aware of it.

perhaps you would be willing to show my wrongdoing in my manner of tone.

Then I will be able to avoid future mishaps with the same issues.

I would still like to understand you view...is there some reason that you don't want to talk about it? If you just don't want to, then that is fine, but say you don't so I am not left hanging for an answer.:lol:


Thanks,
-JD

I've discussed this already either here in this thread or elsewhere in this forum. Briefly, I believe the crucifixion and resurrection are over-emphasized in modern christianity. It's not these events that are important for salvation. rather, it is the message that the Christ brought, especially in his own words in the great Commandment, that was his purpose on earth. Those words got him killed. In that sense, to me, while I still believe in the resurrection of Christ, it's not the test of faith that most Christians have made of it. The test of faith is what Christ asked of Peter: Who do you say that I am? I affirm as Peter did, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.
Ultimately, I'm upset that I need to justify my beliefs for anyone. Yet it seems that is what you are asking many of us to do.

[kara speltz]

I suspect sometimes, we all have too much need for "answers," to all of our questions. This prayer is one of my favorites:

PRAYER FOR A QUESTIONING HEART
It seems to me God
that we search
much too desperately
for answers
when a good question
holds as much grace
as an answer.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad
All you great questioners
Keep our questions alive
that we may always be seekers
rather than settlers.

Guard us well
from the sin of settling in
with our answers
hugged to our breasts.

Make of us
a wondering
far-sighted
questioning
restless people
And give us the feet of pilgrims
on this journey unfinished.
~~Macrina Wiederkehr in Seasons of Your Heart

[J.D.]

This post implies that you have some authority, some revelation that others here do not, and not only do you have this revelation, you feel it is superior to all others.

I don't view as if I have any special revelation from God, I just read the Bible. I am saying anything terribly profound, dynamic, or even striking...my commments come from basic fundamental understanding of the word of God, that's all.

For as many verses like these, there are just as many in which we find a loving, welcoming, inclusive Christ. Your choice of these scriptures indicates to me that your brand of Christianity depends on the exclusion of some people.

Yes there are many verses that display Christ's great love for those around him, his compassion and kindness. But instead of trying to say it has to be one or the other, like it seemed like you were trying to accomplish, I believe they go hand in hand. Like I have stated previously, God is compassionate in that he is willing to forgive us of our sins!
But true love disciplines, just like it says in Proverbs 3:12, "The LORD disciplines those he loves.". Hebrews 12:7 simply states, "God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" I cannot sit here and ignore the verses of God's love, nor do I have any desire to do so. But when you ignore the verses of discipline that sin brings upon us as human beings, then you put yourself in a unique sort of danger.
In the end, Satan wants to attack us and bring us down with him. God want us to avoid that terrible outcome...but if we don't accept him then the choice has been made.
So no, my brand of Christianity as you stated does not specifically focus on excluded people like you said prevously. I just read the Bible like it says.

In this post, I sense that because I (and others here) do not have the same beliefs about atonement and sacrifice as you, that we are to be considered somewhat "less" than you.

I never anywhere said that you were less than (I realize you said I didn't say it, but still that is quite the remark). John 14:6 plainly states that Jesus in the only way...so if that makes you feel inferior then well I am sorry...but I am confused. What part exactly made you feel inferior?


Ultimately, I'm upset that I need to justify my beliefs for anyone. Yet it seems that is what you are asking many of us to do.

I believe that I am also in this boat of discussion when it comes to proving my beliefs. While you have condemned my comments as hostile, your comments have also plainly spoken to my belief as not only inferior and incorrect, but offensive to you...and therefore I must not speak of it anymore.
For all the tolerance going around on the board, there doesn't seem to be much going my way on this issue.

I am also blown away by the constant prayer to other religious leaders, along with prayer directed towards Christ. I realize that there is quite a variance of views on the Christian faith on this weboard, but it strikes me surprisingly none the less. Since when are we as Christians called to pray to Buddha, or meditate on the words of Muhammed?

Forgive my frustration, it has been a long day. I know that was a bit more of an emotionaly charged post than usual and I apologize.

Thanks,
-JD

[keltic63]

I believe that I am also in this boat of discussion when it comes to proving my beliefs. While you have condemned my comments as hostile, your comments have also plainly spoken to my belief as not only inferior and incorrect, but offensive to you...and therefore I must not speak of it anymore.
For all the tolerance going around on the board, there doesn't seem to be much going my way on this issue.



You came here with the questions. We gave our answers. It appears that we hold our beliefs as deeply as you hold yours.

did you come to discuss our differences openly and freely? or did you come with some kind of plan to persuade and teach?

again, I have to ask, have you before ever encountered people who hold beliefs that are vastly different from yours?

[kara speltz]

I don't view as if I have any special revelation from God, I just read the Bible. I am saying anything terribly profound, dynamic, or even striking...my commments come from basic fundamental understanding of the word of God, that's all.



Yes there are many verses that display Christ's great love for those around him, his compassion and kindness. But instead of trying to say it has to be one or the other, like it seemed like you were trying to accomplish, I believe they go hand in hand. Like I have stated previously, God is compassionate in that he is willing to forgive us of our sins!
But true love disciplines, just like it says in Proverbs 3:12, "The LORD disciplines those he loves.". Hebrews 12:7 simply states, "God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" I cannot sit here and ignore the verses of God's love, nor do I have any desire to do so. But when you ignore the verses of discipline that sin brings upon us as human beings, then you put yourself in a unique sort of danger.
In the end, Satan wants to attack us and bring us down with him. God want us to avoid that terrible outcome...but if we don't accept him then the choice has been made.
So no, my brand of Christianity as you stated does not specifically focus on excluded people like you said prevously. I just read the Bible like it says.



I never anywhere said that you were less than (I realize you said I didn't say it, but still that is quite the remark). John 14:6 plainly states that Jesus in the only way...so if that makes you feel inferior then well I am sorry...but I am confused. What part exactly made you feel inferior?



I believe that I am also in this boat of discussion when it comes to proving my beliefs. While you have condemned my comments as hostile, your comments have also plainly spoken to my belief as not only inferior and incorrect, but offensive to you...and therefore I must not speak of it anymore.
For all the tolerance going around on the board, there doesn't seem to be much going my way on this issue.
I am also blown away by the constant prayer to other religious leaders, along with prayer directed towards Christ. I realize that there is quite a variance of views on the Christian faith on this weboard, but it strikes me surprisingly none the less. Since when are we as Christians called to pray to Buddha, or meditate on the words of Muhammed?
Forgive my frustration, it has been a long day. I know that was a bit more of an emotionaly charged post than usual and I apologize.

Thanks,
-JD

JD, you really don't understand a thing that has been said to you throughout this thread. First and foremost, Soulforce is NOT a christian organization. It is a multi-faith organization. Most of us tend to be christian, but of many different denominations with many different beliefs.

I wish there was a larger variance of prayers actually. I fear we tend to be too christian and forget that our gracious God has many, many names.

What we are asking of you is just a bit of humility and acknowledgement that these are your own personal beliefs, not matters of FACT. JD, we are not asking you to not express your faith here, simply to own it as your beliefs.

Trust that folks involved in this discussion are deeply committed seekers who love God (by God's many names) with all their hearts. Celebrate that and respect it, is what we ask of you.

Kara

[J.D.]

Did you come to discuss our differences openly and freely? Or did you come with some kind of plan to persuade and teach? Again, I have to ask, have you before ever encountered people who hold beliefs that are vastly different from yours?

Why is it that when I bring up discussion points, or attempt to discuss yours, my post is seen as a teaching time? I am just like anyone else on this weboard, in that I am here to discuss the issues.

It seems to me that the safest way to discuss issues on this weboard is to be in full agreement rather than bring up opposing viewpoints. When I do bring up my views I am agressed as intolerant, arrogant, seen as "holier than thou", greater (or making those who disagree with me 'lesser'), and so on.

And no, this is not a first time offense of meeting someone that disagrees with me. I enjoy college classes at the local community college, and am along the way constantly bombarded with opposing viewpoints and ideas, with very little support around me. This isn't a rookie experience for me, to say the least.

[keltic63]

What we are asking of you is just a bit of humility and acknowledgement that these are your own personal beliefs, not matters of FACT. JD, we are not asking you to not express your faith here, simply to own it as your beliefs.

Trust that folks involved in this discussion are deeply committed seekers who love God (by God's many names) with all their hearts. Celebrate that and respect it, is what we ask of you.

Kara


JD, I believe Kara has pinpointed the frustration of our dialogues today. If you're feeling attacked by my posts, I think this may be why. You have made many pronouncements, quoted scripture and implied some level of superiority to people who have spent years examining, researching, learning, praying and building up their faith. You have not made many statements (if any) that begin with "I think" or "it is my opinion" or "in my experience." That's not an attack (as you like to say) but it is what I've observed about your posts.

Having said that, we've dealt with many of your statements before in other threads. We've had these discussions already. I agree that this may be unfair to you, but most of the people who have come here, saying the same things you have, end up attacking us on the sole basis of our lgbt orientations. Perhaps you can forgive us for having that emotional baggage. I will also remind you that the soulforce forums are to be a safe place for lgbt people. Your fundamentalist brothers and sisters do not have a good track record for kind and loving treatment of us.

If you think that the only way to discuss things here is to agree, then you need to read some more threads. We often disagree, very publically. Many of us, though, will take diasagreements, especially those of a personal nature, to pm's. We're not here to tear each other down, we're here to build each other up, support each other, and to not only discuss, but support the mission of SoulForce.

I think you're seeing that many of our members are indeed enjoying the conversations with you. As a matter of fact, I am too. I'm being a bit pointed with you, and I'm questioning a lot of what you're posting. Some of that is part of my moderator duties. Some is a way of getting you to say exactly what you mean. In order for you to feel more comfortable, allow me to back off.
Friends, please enter into some discussion with JD. Perhaps you can find a gentler voice to deal with him. Mine appears to be a bit on the defense.

[Emproph]

I'm sorry for not coming back to this thread sooner, but I'm glad I posted the question before pontificating. I didn't realize it was such a hot topic. That was kind of my point though, I'd never thought of it before or really heard the merits of this discussed...and found that a bit odd.. :inspector:

Many of you have touched on a lot of the following points. I’m going to avoid quoting for stream-of-consciousness’ sake. So I apologize, you’ll have to give yourselves credit for now. And a special note to Pablo, if/when you're reading this I hope you didn't just wake up. :D (I actually had you in mind when I first posted this)
~~~
How could God need sin to fulfill His will?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus.

Recently I watched a movie called The Gathering, with Christina Ricci which presented this concept to me. I found it strange that I had never considered the illogic of it before, because I have considered the illogic of how man could be responsible for sin, or free will. If God knows the future, surely He/She/It would have known ahead of time that we would have eaten the forbidden fruit. That part is still a “mystery” which I hope to someday understand.

But the crucifixion seems like a different story. In this case God is the one who is in need of specific human sins in order to atone for all human sin, in that actual people had to put nails into Jesus' body in order to crucify him.

What occurs to me now however, that makes even less sense, is why God would allow the legacy of something so fundamentally illogical. Surely God would have known that fundamental illogic would compromise this necessary message of salvation.

It’s classic chicken-or-egg. If the story of the crucifixion is true, then God is Love who desires that we be saved. But if the crucifixion is true, then Love required our own sin to save us.

Obviously there’s missing information lying around here somewhere.
~~~
So recently the “Tomb of Jesus” HBO documentary came out. Paula Zhan was talking about it the week before it’s premiere and interviewed the co-author of the book, as well as a couple of other guests. I remember the issue was about whether this would “shatter the faith of millions” (<if Jesus had a wife and family). The co-author said that it wouldn’t, and I agreed. But one of the guests disagreed, saying that it denies the resurrection, causing me to think upon the importance of that. And it also reminded me of the same hoopla being generated over The Last Temptation of Christ and more recently, The Da Vinci Code. Both of those movies proposed/explored the same thing.

So that was how this thread was born. Set aside the issue of Biblical inerrancy for a moment, my original question was in regard to what would happen if Jesus DID have a family and DID NOT die on the cross.

The only reason I see that he couldn't STILL be the savior would be the issue of Biblical inerrancy. No Bible = No Jesus = No Salvation
~~~
There is a line in The Starseed Transmissions that says something like, “When spirit touches matter lightly, organisms like Earth are formed. When spirit touches matter fully, stars are born.”

This is how I see it. WE ARE the cross. The "cross" between spirit and matter, and the "crucifixion" is the death of spirit that gives life to matter.

Hence the Biblical verses:
Matthew 16:24 (http://http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:24;&version=31;)
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Luke 9:23 (http://http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:23&version=31)
23Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Since we already "are" the cross, I see these verses as explaining the willingness to engage in our own personal crucifixion - to be the "salvation" for others. In other words, we are ALL called to the same horrific and fearful crucifixion for the salvation of mankind, just as Christ was.

Having been resurrected, he now has the ability to inspire us to our own resurrection – through our personal crucifixion. Jesus' "crucifixion" is and will be ongoing as long as ours are. The awareness of His spiritual crucifixion, through us, began with his resurrection. That's WHY it was so important, he now has the ability to lead us in our hearts WITH our awareness -- with our conscious cooperation.

I think Dave has come closest in articulating the way I see it:
The crucifixion doesn't stand by itself. As Christians, our salvation isn't accomplished by Christ's crucifixion alone but rather by his crucifixion AND his RESURRECTION. The two are one. Christ submits to death on behalf of the whole of humanity (actually the whole creation) and destroys it on behalf of the whole world.

Death is a reality for all of us. It is universal, unavoidable and immutable. The good news in Christ is that Love is more powerful than death. One man giving up life results in abundant life for all. The crucifixion/resurrection of Christ reveals the nature of God (God is the one who answers all crucifixion with Resurrection) The crucifixion/resurrection reveals the TRUE nature of the universe and human experience. Christine is experiencing the crucifixion of break-up but God waits with a resurrection. My friend suffers the crucifixion of her child's cancer but God waits with a resurrection for the child and for the mother. Many of us suffer the crucifixion of oppression, but God is working behind the scenes to bring the resurrection of full equality.Point being, the resurrection cannot exist without the crucifixion. The idea being...

Christine can't find the new love that will lead to her have the child that will cure cancer without the break-up. The friend who's child has cancer can't learn to heal the pain of other mothers in the same predicament without understanding it first. Those of us who are oppressed can't know how to CEMENT the "law" of equality for all to come without first learning abject inequity -- we are the T-cells of human equality.

The first shall be last
My strength is my weakness
~~
Now I’ve always looked at the physical cross/crucifixion as extending throughout all time and place. That fits perfectly with oneness theology, but I believe the orthodox view is that God is IN everything and IS everywhere. I think they work the same though.

Via The Trinity
God=Everything
Son=creation
Holy Spirit=Their relationship

Whether or not Jesus was crucified physically or not, it seems to me that the message of the symbolism is infinitely more important than the message of the physical one – even though the symbolic one is based on the physical one.
~~~
“It’s the nature of all tragedy, the hero dies but the story lives on forever.”
~Stranger Than Fiction~
~~~
What if Jesus got married, had kids, but taught the concept of the cross and the crucifixion entirely in the spiritual sense. Then what if those who put the Bible together decided that a happy ending wasn’t sufficient to carry that message.

In other words, what if they thought the hero had to die in order for his message to survive? Wishful fancy considering the nature of human corruption I think.. Bear with me.

When pressed on the nature of Biblical inerrancy and the ‘logic’ behind closing a cannon meant to reflect an infinite truth, I have sometimes gotten the response from people that God as the Holy Spirit ensured that any and all mistranslations, deletions of books, etc., were planned.

I agree. However I also extend that ideology to all of creation down to the last molecule.

So if anything, God is ultimately responsible for any and all Biblical illogic, but ONLY for the purpose of recognizing it as such.

Outside of what I see as the biggest “mystery” – how could God allow original sin if He knew the future – I guess what I’m thinking is that the only reason God would allow the survival of the absurdity of a story of salvation to survive that required that some humans NEEDED to sin – by crucifying Jesus – in order to be redeemed of sin, was to ensure that such an illogic would be understood in no uncertain terms as blasphemy. A loving God would never choose to confuse.

God’s ‘protection’ of an oxymoronic heretical crucifixion says to me: “THIS IS THE TRUTH OF CONFUSION!” – and thus we know what Love is not.

And thus we know how to recognize the sense of Love -- by it’s self confirming absence of confusion.


Phew. Thank God that’s settled... :lol:

[u-dog]

I get your argument Emproph and it really is fascinating, but I maintain that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection must be ACTUAL in order to reveal the nature of God's essential being and the essential nature of the universe.

The reality of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection activates and energizes the metaphorical truth that flows from it. It is proven (to me) when I live a crucified and resurrected life as though Christ's crucifixion and resurrection were true (real/actual) and discover God in the process.

The actuality of the crucifixion and the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian Faith. Take it away and the structure crumbles.

[bryanf]

Recently I watched a movie called The Gathering, with Christina Ricci which presented this concept to me. I found it strange that I had never considered the illogic of it before, because I have considered the illogic of how man could be responsible for sin, or free will. If God knows the future, surely He/She/It would have known ahead of time that we would have eaten the forbidden fruit. That part is still a “mystery” which I hope to someday understand.


Also don't be extremely hasty to think that the knowledge of God is like memories. God perhaps may not be viewing each event as past events. There is a possibility with God being the one who is both in and outside of time-space, that God is actively present in all points in and out of space-time. In other words each moment and location is "now" before God.

So in one way God is observing/experiencing the fall of humanity as he is there observing us read an electronic forum.



But the crucifixion seems like a different story. In this case God is the one who is in need of specific human sins in order to atone for all human sin, in that actual people had to put nails into Jesus' body in order to crucify him.



That might be putting the cart before the horse. Yes humanity did indeed slay our Lord. Was this intended method for redemption, God only knows. Did God make the best out of it? He sure did!

Also don't forget folks like Snt. Ireneaus he proposed that even had we not fallen, that God would have still sent us Christ to mature us from being the Image of God into the Image of Christ.


What occurs to me now however, that makes even less sense, is why God would allow the legacy of something so fundamentally illogical. Surely God would have known that fundamental illogic would compromise this necessary message of salvation.


I also remember it being expressed that God likes to confound the wise and yes even humble the strong.


It’s classic chicken-or-egg. If the story of the crucifixion is true, then God is Love who desires that we be saved. But if the crucifixion is true, then Love required our own sin to save us.


Not necessarily. Our becoming The Image of Christ may indeed have occurred another way, however once again God may have taken what was meant for evil and turn it into good.



Obviously there’s missing information lying around here somewhere.
~~~
So recently the “Tomb of Jesus” HBO documentary came out. Paula Zhan was talking about it the week before it’s premiere and interviewed the co-author of the book, as well as a couple of other guests. I remember the issue was about whether this would “shatter the faith of millions” (<if Jesus had a wife and family). The co-author said that it wouldn’t, and I agreed. But one of the guests disagreed, saying that it denies the resurrection, causing me to think upon the importance of that. And it also reminded me of the same hoopla being generated over The Last Temptation of Christ and more recently, The Da Vinci Code. Both of those movies proposed/explored the same thing.

So that was how this thread was born. Set aside the issue of Biblical inerrancy for a moment, my original question was in regard to what would happen if Jesus DID have a family and DID NOT die on the cross.



The only reason I see that he couldn't STILL be the savior would be the issue of Biblical inerrancy. No Bible = No Jesus = No Salvation
~~~


Jeaz I feel then bad for the early church. They had no formal canon. Wow so they then must have had no jesus and no salvaiton. No wait they did. No. We are not to treat the Scripture as John Calvin does as if it is or is the Christ (see his commentary on 2nd Timothy). Scripture alone only testifies that which is good and true. That which is indeed historical.


There is a line in The Starseed Transmissions that says something like, “When spirit touches matter lightly, organisms like Earth are formed. When spirit touches matter fully, stars are born.”

This is how I see it. WE ARE the cross. The "cross" between spirit and matter, and the "crucifixion" is the death of spirit that gives life to matter.

Hence the Biblical verses:

Since we already "are" the cross, I see these verses as explaining the willingness to engage in our own personal crucifixion - to be the "salvation" for others. In other words, we are ALL called to the same horrific and fearful crucifixion for the salvation of mankind, just as Christ was.

Having been resurrected, he now has the ability to inspire us to our own resurrection – through our personal crucifixion. Jesus' "crucifixion" is and will be ongoing as long as ours are. The awareness of His spiritual crucifixion, through us, began with his resurrection. That's WHY it was so important, he now has the ability to lead us in our hearts WITH our awareness -- with our conscious cooperation.


Be careful now. Your explanation of it really borders on both the Gnostic teachings and the certain teachings of Free Masonry. The church has as a whole condemned the Gnostic thought as heretical and much of the church still condemns Free Masonry as false teachings and some even call it idolatry. I am not saying that its right or wrong. But the idea of resurrection via that avenue has alot of real problems that the Church fairly much as a whole would get up in arms about.

But then again as one of my friends always says, "We every now and again a little bit of heresy" so that we may come to see some truth.



I think Dave has come closest in articulating the way I see it:
Point being, the resurrection cannot exist without the crucifixion. The idea being...

Christine can't find the new love that will lead to her have the child that will cure cancer without the break-up. The friend who's child has cancer can't learn to heal the pain of other mothers in the same predicament without understanding it first. Those of us who are oppressed can't know how to CEMENT the "law" of equality for all to come without first learning abject inequity -- we are the T-cells of human equality.

The first shall be last
My strength is my weakness
~~
Now I’ve always looked at the physical cross/crucifixion as extending throughout all time and place. That fits perfectly with oneness theology, but I believe the orthodox view is that God is IN everything and IS everywhere. I think they work the same though.



Some of us are panentheists. For a more detailed explanation of this please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Christianity). It is a strong position within the traditions of the church.



Via The Trinity
God=Everything
Son=creation
Holy Spirit=Their relationship

Whether or not Jesus was crucified physically or not, it seems to me that the message of the symbolism is infinitely more important than the message of the physical one – even though the symbolic one is based on the physical one.
~~~
“It’s the nature of all tragedy, the hero dies but the story lives on forever.”
~Stranger Than Fiction~
~~~
What if Jesus got married, had kids, but taught the concept of the cross and the crucifixion entirely in the spiritual sense. Then what if those who put the Bible together decided that a happy ending wasn’t sufficient to carry that message.

In other words, what if they thought the hero had to die in order for his message to survive? Wishful fancy considering the nature of human corruption I think.. Bear with me.

When pressed on the nature of Biblical inerrancy and the ‘logic’ behind closing a cannon meant to reflect an infinite truth, I have sometimes gotten the response from people that God as the Holy Spirit ensured that any and all mistranslations, deletions of books, etc., were planned.



Honestly if such corruption did go through the church to such a degree. Then I would say indeed the Devil at last has vanguished the Church and overcame God.

If the Spirit of God is in The Church and is sustaining the Church, I really really really really really doubt that God in all of his powers, grace, and goodness would of allowed for something like that to happen. For him to allow this to happen would destroy much of the notion that God is indeed trustworthy.



I agree. However I also extend that ideology to all of creation down to the last molecule.

So if anything, God is ultimately responsible for any and all Biblical illogic, but ONLY for the purpose of recognizing it as such.

Outside of what I see as the biggest “mystery” – how could God allow original sin if He knew the future – I guess what I’m thinking is that the only reason God would allow the survival of the absurdity of a story of salvation to survive that required that some humans NEEDED to sin – by crucifying Jesus – in order to be redeemed of sin, was to ensure that such an illogic would be understood in no uncertain terms as blasphemy. A loving God would never choose to confuse.



Ummm he seems to have done that alot. Particularly with miracles and other such things. Or his actions in that he tends to first reveal himself to the weak and oppressed than to the strong. But hey thats his own prerogative



God’s ‘protection’ of an oxymoronic heretical crucifixion says to me: “THIS IS THE TRUTH OF CONFUSION!” – and thus we know what Love is not.

And thus we know how to recognize the sense of Love -- by it’s self confirming absence of confusion.


Phew. Thank God that’s settled... :lol:

But yeah the biggest thing I have and had to say is that the crucifixion may have not been necessarily but God sure did redeem it for our goodness.

And on a final note your perspective here has taken the view that we are constantly transposing sin and trespasses. That is is like an on and off switch that we are flipping. That in short your description of sin seems to be limited to that of action, particularly actions in legal terms.

Other views of sin being that we exist in sin. That part of our being has become infected/instilled with sin. That without God all that we can hope to do is to do something with tainted hands. So in short for even God to interact with creation, from this perspective (which I am not saying is or is not mine), is to say that each time God has interacted with creation he has had to deal with the rampant nature of sin that has infected all of nature. If that is the case, it seems then a litle ironic he would use that which caused seperation to be the avenue for restoration. In other words God took a sinful action of humanity (crucifixing the Lord) and turned it out for something good. Ultimately a purifing processs.

And finally the main reason I am against the self-resurrection idea is because it demeans and lessens the notion of the union and communion that one day as believers we shall share with God. That it demeans the notion that we are within Christ and Christ within us.

But any how thanks for the good dialogue. I have really enjoyed it.

In the spirit of myspace here are your 2 kudos.

[Emproph]

The reality of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection activates and energizes the metaphorical truth that flows from it.

WOW...MAN...That’s quintessential.

Let me not ruin that with any more than: Yeah, that.