Religion has stepped on science's turf?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

....unless he has a Dad, who has no beginning.
A Dad who created the omniverse, then created God, then God created our universe.
Impossible or not?

It is an interesting theological point but it does reduce to that which is created and that which is uncreated. Its philosophically sound I suppose.

[Dicky Underpants]

....unless he has a Dad, who has no beginning.
A Dad who created the omniverse, then created God, then God created our universe.
Impossible or not?

Could read as a variant of Gnosticism, except that refers more to "emanations". The ultimate godhead is all good and spiritual, but in the moment of his creative enterprises, the demiurge who eventually made our world comes into being. The latter is ignorant and, if not quite evil, a pathetic bungler in his own creative attempts. Seems to have a few resonances that sound plausible.

[jeremyp]

Choose from the following

Talk of rule is being sarcastic
Talk of a rule is being simplistic

Choose amongst the following:

Vlad is trying to distract attention from the fact he doesn’t have an answer to the the point again.

[jeremyp]

Let’s be more explicit. You said:

If we are alienated against God and act that out in alienation against other humans and nature then God has to take on any damage incurred and CHRIST is that way.

That is a rule. I offered you the option that it was created by a higher authority than God. You pooh poohed that suggestion. That only leaves us with the option that God created that rule.

So what you are saying is that your god made a rule which means he has to answer for our misdemeanors. Why can’t God - the ultimate authority - just forgive us?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let’s be more explicit. You said:

That is a rule. I offered you the option that it was created by a higher authority than God. You pooh poohed that suggestion. That only leaves us with the option that God created that rule.

So what you are saying is that your god made a rule which means he has to answer for our misdemeanors. Why can’t God - the ultimate authority - just forgive us?

What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.

[jeremyp]

What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.

No it doesn’t.

When the Home Secretary pardons a criminal, they don’t have to do the time themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn’t.

When the Home Secretary pardons a criminal, they don’t have to do the time themselves.

The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.

Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.

[Maeght]

Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.

Which means what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which means what?

I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.

[Roses]

The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.

Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.

What about his own sins, who took those away?

[Rhiannon]

What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.

No it doesn't. That's just some weird kind of masochism. How would someone forgive, say, a rapist by 'taking it upon themselves'? That just sounds like a way to prolong suffering.

[Rhiannon]

The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.

Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.

So if I have an investment in forgiving the man who raped me I should do that by taking on his guilt for him? Is that what your church teaches?

[Stranger]

I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.

None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.

[Rhiannon]

None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.

Yes, if you define 'sin' along Biblical lines - and I don't think that there is any other way - you are including the 'wrong' kinds of love, having more stuff than you need, coveting your neighbour's bottom etc - in other words, we need forgiveness for being human.

[SteveH]

What about his own sins, who took those away?

That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.

[Rhiannon]

That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.

But if Jesus was fully human then he must have sinned?

[Roses]

That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.

There is nothing perfect about some of the deeds attributed to him, he was just human like the rest of us.

[jeremyp]

The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.

If I forgive the person who mugged me, I don't have to go to prison in their place.

Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.

But he didn't have to.

[jeremyp]

I suppose Calvinists would say ...
Other Christians would say ...
Universalists would say...

What do you say?

[SteveH]

But if Jesus was fully human then he must have sinned?

No, he was fully human because he didn't sin. It's we who are less than fully human because of sin, according to orthodox Christian theology.

[jeremyp]

No, he was fully human because he didn't sin. It's we who are less than fully human because of sin, according to orthodox Christian theology.

So God is human, but humans are not human.

Maybe the point of this has been lost in there mists of previous posts, but you are supposed to be demonstrating that the Christian god is not an incoherent concept, not proving that it is incoherent.

[SteveH]

So God is human, but humans are not human.

Maybe the point of this has been lost in there mists of previous posts, but you are supposed to be demonstrating that the Christian god is not an incoherent concept, not proving that it is incoherent.

It's not that difficult to understand, nor is it incoherent, unless you are determined to oppose and mock Christianity at every turn.

[jeremyp]

It's not that difficult to understand

I understand perfectly. The Christian theology is a mist mash of ideas from disparate people and is not the idea of a single entity.

nor is it incoherent, unless you are determined to oppose and mock Christianity at every turn.

You just told us that God is human but humans are not human. It's difficult to see how not to mock such an incoherent idea.

[SteveH]

I understand perfectly. The Christian theology is a mist mash of ideas from disparate people and is not the idea of a single entity.

You just told us that God is human but humans are not human. It's difficult to see how not to mock such an incoherent idea.

Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?

[Roses]

Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?

Even for you that statement is totally incoherent.