I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I have been very busy the last little while and i wanted to have to time to give this the attention it deserves.
Dezaad said:
No, it is not something that has happened, it is a story that the Bible claims happened.
And I am seconding that story. But I'll get to that.
And the story is not holding together, as I have demonstrated. When a story doesn't hold together, it cannot be something that happened.
The story has held true for some of the greatest minds of the last twenty centuries, and yet you think you are now seeing it unravel before your eyes? Come now, surely you aren't that easily convinced. The story does hold together, it just doesn't hold together you would like it to, so you deem in untrue.
And now, in order to attempt to hold the story together, you've conceded that Jesus was no longer God in at least his last moments on the cross. That is the first time, I think, that I have heard/read a believer saying that Jesus was ever not God.
Firstly, I haven't conceeded to anything. I have only suggested that that be one possible scenerio. But, really, there are quite a few seperate possible scenerios. In fact, the one I actually tend to believe a little more convincing is that He was never "not God," but rather He simply submitted His powers during this point in time. Now, you say to this, either His is man or He is God. But the paradox of Jesus is that He was God as a man. So He was both God and man. You suggest because He might have surrendered His "super powers" during crucifixion that He was no longer God. Well, just because He has forfieted an ability, does not change His identity. If for some reason I lost my ability to write (perhaps I lost my arms) that would not change the fact that I am who I am. In ths same manner, just because Jesus chose to give up His powers, it does not change His identity. God is much more than an all powerful being. He is a loving, sacrificing, fatherly God. His identity is more than His abilities. And simply for His perfection and His love alone he is Holy compared to us as humans. So, Jesus, even without His super powers, is not only a man, but He is God and man.
While not exactly refreshing, it is... unusual.
Why? Because someone can present a few seperate possibilities of the event?
We are here discussing his ability to have courage, and you were claiming he may have given up his magical powers, and thus would have to have manifested courage
But the whole point of discussing courage was because you suggested that God was somehow not superior to men because He cannot possess courage.
But, you stated that he gave them up while on the cross.
I have suggested that is one possibility. But also, not that He gave up these powers while on the cross, but why not twenty four hours before? He could have hypothetically given them up and any time in between His capture and His crucifixion, under this hypothesis.
There is nothing to indicate that he did, and something to indicate that he didn't. His statement there, in the very last moment has the scent of fear.
Courage is an overcoming of fear. One must first have something to fear, to overcome fear.
Yes, it is indeed, as far as raw power goes. My point is that courage trumps omniscience in the virtue department. One is a virtue, the other is not.
But it is not always a virtue. In fact sometimes courage can be a harmful thing. Besides, what is it you are trying to suggest by saying that we have a virtue that God does not possess? What does that mean in the scheme of things?
Which completely ignores: A) That you have stated that man has a sinful nature
Let me, then, clarify for you what is meant by this. It is the vast tendancy of man to sin. As it is in a drunkards nature to drink, it is the tendancy of man to sin. This does not mean man is incapable of not sinning (see Ezekial), but that in incredible probability, he will.
B)That you have stated that Jesus did not
Because He was holy (which means set apart) this is one of the reasons He was set apart from us.
C) That you have stated that Jesus was human
And tempted just as we are...
D) That I have made the point that he was human in the sense of significantly partaking of the human experience only if a sinful nature is a trivial difference between god and man
Sin is neither a trivial difference between God and man, neither is it the only difference between God and man. So what is your point?
I do not recognize that we are god's creation. I am exploring whether it is logical to conclude that we are.
But it seems as though instead of taking this from the perspective of someone who is truly interested, you are taking the approach of the person who will dissregaurd all arguments I bring forward because you already have your belief and will not change that no matter what I say.
I see contradictions. Contradictions indicate that something cannot be true.
Then let me help you with those contradictions individually.
When believers are confronted with the contradictions inherent to the problem of evil, it is common for the believer to bring up the potter and the clay passage, or at least its meaning. You followed that typical path. Instead of pointing out that the potter and the clay does not address the contradictions, I chose to point out that it is simply a mental straitjacket.
Firstly, you are making generalizations. Secondly, you will never find a Christian who will be able to tell you why God created us the way He did with the rules that He did until they can personally talk to Him in a manner that would disclose that. It is no different than you asking me why Michealangelo chose to paint the Sistine Chapel the way he did. I honsetly do not have the ability to step into the psyche of God any more than I do anyone else. I could come up with a thousand different "well maybe He's..." but that would get us no where because it is all speculation of someone else's mind. But, having said all that, my inability to know the intentions of God in our creation and our boundaries does not hinder my faith that there IS a God and that He DID create us. I just don't know exactly why.
I would argue that it is you, not I, that is wearing the mental straitjacket. Probably the one you tried to fit me with.
I am free to think as I like, but I do not waste my hours attempting to get into Michealangelos head any more than I do God's.
I won't believe something that contains contradictions
I'm willing to help you work through them if that's what you want to do. But, you do realize all of history is lined with contradicting stories throughout.
It provides intellectual comfort for you to believe that I am being selfish and prideful, doesn't it?
No, it does not. In fact, some of the smartest people I know (far more intellectual than myself) are selfish and prideful. So having those to attributes does not necessarly make me an intellectual superior. In fact, there is a great possibilty that you are my intellectual superior. But that doesn't really matter a great deal to me. There will always be a bigger fish, and a smarter one. I don't tend to do well at striving for goals I know I will never accomplish.
My point is that, 'the way out' is beside the point. If he made us inevitably disobedient (which is what I believe, and nothing you've said has moved me away from that) then he owed us the "way out".
He made us in the form of Adam and Eve, unaware of how sexy sin can appear. And yet, Eve still chose to act against Him. It is our choice. It was not ineveitable, it was chosen. And it is continuasly chosen. Godliness is not impossible, it is simply unlikely.
So, his 'sacrifice' is meaningless until the problem of evil is settled.
He seems to dissagree with you. But, Biblically speaking, He will stand as Judge and Jury for you, and then you will be able to plead your case to Him.
But, your attempt to interject the notion of his sacrifice into a debate like this is not unexpected.
Because it is free forgiveness that we do not deserve.
It gets trotted out almost no matter what the debate is.
Needless to say it is important for many of us.
It is quite a powerful story, from an emotional standpoint. But, when that power is emphasized where it is irrelevant to a topic, I have to conclude that the emphasizer is retreating into the envelope of ignorance powerful emotions provide, or attempting to manipulate the discussion, or both.
You suggest He is malevolent. If God were malevolent, He would not have sent His son for a sacrifice. That is my point. Nothing more.