Sunday, March 13, 2011

Why not Christ?

Atheists and Christians have many things in common. One of which is that we want to live our life our way. We want to do it in a way that seems right in our own eyes. And we certainly don't want to be told by anyone else what is right or wrong. Whether that comes to us by the way of others, some god or any old books.

Another thing Atheists and Christians have in common is that they like to change God instead of having God change them. The Atheist says "there can't be God because if there was one then he did it all wrong, He should have done it like the way I would have done it". Christians do this all the time as well. They believe in God but would rather change what His word says to fit around their life style then to conform to the way we should be.

Also Atheists and Christians both think that God is gonna judge mankind on some kind of curve. God is not gonna judge you on how your life looks like next to Hitler's life or the life of my homeslice Charlie Manson's. (also from Cincinnati). I think some Atheists think in the small chance that there is a God, that they will be able to convince God they are good enough to avoid judgement based upon the own efforts. But none of us can get to God on our own merits, wisdom or goodness. Not Mother Teresa, not feeno and not you.

Mother Teresa is with the Lord because she repented of her sins. feeno will be with the Lord because he repented of his sins. Judas is in hell, not because he betrayed Jesus, but because he never believed in Christs message.

A Believers sin isn't better or worse than the Atheists sin. But when God sees my sins, He sees them through the cross. Which means my sins are forgiven. Although everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions in life, they are not free to choose the consequences of those decisions.

Dueces

25 comments:

  1. I would gladly burn in hell if it meant that monsters who avoided justice on Earth were punished after their early exit (Hitler comes to mind, but he's just one of many). But just because I want there to be posthumous justice does not make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post, feeno. Isn't the Gospel glorious? Glorious, that is, for those who by God's mercy have embraced it. Otherwise, it seems like non-sense. The Gospel was counter-cultural back then just as it is today,

    "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to see you posting again pal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Feeno said:

    "A Believers sin isn't better or worse than the Atheists sin. But when God sees my sins, He sees them through the cross."

    Salvation theology has always perplexed me. We could very well say that Jesus is only willing to admit those who love him into heaven with him for all eternity. Those who don't will sit it out. But the concept of sin needn't enter into it. It need not be part of the equation, unless (unless!), sin is being used as a bargaining chip for a reward and punishment scheme--in which case you would need incentive to follow Jesus (ah-ha! heaven) and you'd need punishment to make his enemies think twice (ah-ha! hell), but then, I can't help but feel, such a scheme is an obvious sign of a man-made religion--not the religion of an all loving God.

    Salvation theology only makes sense if it hinges on a doctrine of "original sin." And such a doctrine, I think you'll find, is indefensible. Why is it indefensible? Because it either boils down to allegory or nonsense. Either the talking snake is allegorical, and thus the concept of sin is a metaphor for real world evil, or else the fable is in the literal sense--complete nonsense.

    My question would be, how can you hinge Salvation doctrine on the literal interpretation of a metaphor? It seems if sin is but a metaphor, then salvation is too.

    Sorry Feeno, I don't mean to get theologically heavy, but this is an age old dilemma which I do not feel Christianity has ever come up with an adequate (reasonable) answer for. It just keeps asserting the doctrine of sin and then keeps telling you salvation is the cure. It seems to me, however, that the problem of sin is a Christian invention and therefore a problem Christianity makes for itself! What's more, noticing the contrived nature of this invention it then tries to fix, in post hoc fashion, with an addendum (i.e., salvation theology), and all this before you can get to God.

    It's like Christians are punching themselves in their own faces, but the only way to fix this self induced problem is by believing that there was a once man who magically taught them they could override their desire to punch themselves in the face if they merely accepted the fact that he didn't want them to do that thing any longer, and so they accept this strange fact, and low and behold they stop punching themselves in their own faces. To the thinking man, the man of reason, it seems a lot easier to, from the beginning, just not to inflict the abuse against oneself in the first place.

    "Thou shalt not hit thyself."

    Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Maryland Crustacean said:

    "Good post, feeno. Isn't the Gospel glorious? Glorious, that is, for those who by God's mercy have embraced it. Otherwise, it seems like non-sense."

    It often times seems like nonsense, I would caution, because it often times is. Not always, of course, but much of the time, yes.

    Do you really believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of all mankind? You would have to in order to call yourself a Christian, so let's assume you are a good Christian.

    Then, as a good Christian do you suppose the reason Jesus died for this curse of sin put upon the human race is because Adam sinned, and therefore we sinned in Adam? This is what the early Church fathers say, and as the founders of Christianity I feel I must take their word on it.

    So my question is this: Is the Adam and Eve story really a literal account of how mankind fell from Grace, or is it, perhaps a metaphor?

    See, the problem is like this. If it's a literal tale, then you are stuck with the embarrassing fact that Jesus atoned for the sings of two teenagers playing "hide the snake in the garden patch" meanwhile, a dubious slithering and sly serpent happens up them, chats up the chick, and tricks them into eating a forbidden magical fruit. Never mind the fact that the snake is to blame for the initial crime against God and not the kids, let's take it at face value--and what we find is that it's absurd. Anyone who tries to defend the validity of original sin by defending the Garden of Eden myth is simply embarrassing themselves.

    Now, on the other hand, suppose you take a more sophisticated approach. Sin is only meant as a metaphor for real world evils. Well then, what is to suggest that salvation theology is not merely a metaphor as well? If the simple story of a selfless sacrifice would do, as a sort of resolution to the above metaphor, then would it not make more sense to view Jesus 'light of the Cross' as simply another Christian metaphor?

    Some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We could very well say that Jesus is only willing to admit those who love him into heaven with him for all eternity. Those who don't will sit it out

    Youre leaving out a big part of the wquation here entitled obedience. Many assent that Jesus was a great teacher, yet do they actually follow His ways?

    I could "love" Jesus and yet hire hookers, sell drugs and get involved in all types of ill $#!+. I doubt I would get into Heaven that way though.

    My question would be, how can you hinge Salvation doctrine on the literal interpretation of a metaphor? It seems if sin is but a metaphor, then salvation is too

    Christianity and it's central message only make sense if we agree and proceed from the point that both Man and the world are in a fallen state.

    So my question is this: Is the Adam and Eve story really a literal account of how mankind fell from Grace, or is it, perhaps a metaphor?

    Father Dwight Longenecker addressed this in a fairly recent post, quote...

    "Why does it matter if the first twelve chapters of Genesis are recounting historical events or not? It matters because the whole rest of the Old Testament record is clearly a presentation of God's interaction in history--God's interaction in the history of the Hebrew people, and this historical interaction lays the foundation for the ultimate historical interaction by God with his people--the incarnation of his Son.

    What do I mean when I say that these stories 'act on us as myth does'? Myth connects with the deeper parts of our shared consciousness within our humanity. Great stories of mythical heroes who go on a quest, interactions with gods and goddesses, all the great stories of the world engage us at a deep level and we connect with the events and drama in a ceremonial and symbolic way using a language that is deeper than words and explications. The stories of the beginning of Genesis do as well, with the exception that these are not fanciful stories as the pagan myths are, but stories based in real events.

    This prepares the way for the 'myth that really happened' in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the Lord."

    ReplyDelete
  7. My reply is a bit long winded I'm afraid:

    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2011/03/adam-and-eve-legend-or-myth-and-on-myth.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. My reply is short winded.

    The Apostle Paul believed it wasn't myth or legend but fact. 2nd Corinthians 11:3 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpents cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ".

    Also John in his book of Revelations says this "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray".

    Yo Vickster when you say "do you really believe Jesus atoned for all the sins of mankind"? Say it like this; Jesus atoned for the sins of T-Vick. If you were the only one on Earth or the only one who would repent He still would have went to the cross.

    You and me can have sin in our lives or see sin abounding all over the place and just shrug it off. But God ain't us.

    late

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hope youre doing OK in your part of the world BTW CV.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Youre not kidding that was long winded.

    For starters, you state "Adam and Eve have never been proved to be anything other than mythical" and yet you don't make mention of Mitochondrial Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  11. JD, I love this part of what you quoted:

    "The stories of the beginning of Genesis do as well, with the exception that these are not fanciful stories as the pagan myths are, but stories based in real events."

    It's special pleading at its finest. "Look, these stories are exactly the same as all those other mythologies...but ours are real!"

    Also, if you think mitochondrial Eve has anything AT ALL to do with a naked woman in a garden talking to snakes, you clearly have not read the article you linked to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mitochondrial Eve doesn't imply there was ever only one woman. Science fail, JD.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another approach:

    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2011/03/adam-and-eve-whats-meaning-of-myth.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Feeno, you got it all wrong. Mother Teresa isn't with the Lord because she repented her sins. She is with God because she was CATHOLIC!

    ReplyDelete
  15. W'dup Lordship? Good to hear from you. I will say being CATHOLIC is a pretty good start.

    peace

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mitochondrial Eve doesn't imply there was ever only one woman

    "In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal "MRCA" (most recent common ancestor). In other words, this was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person." Link

    I wish you luck in editing the page.

    Cue up TalkOrigins link in 3.. 2.. 1..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Feeno, I missed you man.

    His Holiness the Pope says that Catholicism is the only true legitimate Church. So following the Pope's logic, only Catholics are saved. Of course, I don't believe that, and neither do you. I was just joking.

    But let's get back on topic here... I have problems with the doctrine that one cannot get into Heaven by his own merit.

    If I were someone who believed in God, I would think that good deeds speak louder than prayers, and that repentance is worthless unless it is backed up by some serious work. That's just inviting people to be lazy and hope for a "get out of Hell free card" by worshiping the correct Deity, instead of teaching people to work hard at it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good stuff Lordship. And I agree to your premise. This ain't easy to answer so I will begin with your 2nd point first because it's a little easier to answer. you said "...repentance is worthless unless it is backed up by some serious work". James who was Christ's half brother also agrees with you. (tho your Catholic Brother wouldn't necessarily think Christ had half Bro's and sisters) any ways James puts it this way "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds"?

    He is not saying that a mans goodness is what "saves" him tho. The Bible is clear "that our righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:22-23

    And our sin deserves a death penalty. Romans 6:23 says "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

    And just to add to your point a little more the Lord doesn't pass out "get out of Hell free cards". Matthew tells us Jesus sys this "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

    be right back

    ReplyDelete
  19. Now to your first point about "deeds speaking louder than prayers". There's an old atheist quote that says "two hands working are better than to hands folded in prayer". I was lucky enough to hear this Christian quote 20 or so years ago, long before I even knew there were atheists. But it went like this "If a farmer is praying for rain, then ass better be on a tractor".

    God will honor His people and their prayers. follow me on this:

    If sin is the cause of all death, sickness, disease etc. then the ultimate healing would be life and health. And tho physically we may have to endure these things, spiritually we can be healed forever. That's why Christ is more concerned with the eternal mans soul than the temporal mans well being here on Earth.

    Hope that helps at least letting you know where I come from?

    late

    ReplyDelete
  20. JD, the very link you posted includes a section called "Common Fallacies", under which there is one entitled "Not the only woman". Your own link refutes you.

    But to make it perfectly clear, let's draw an analogy. I could find the matrilineal (through the females) most recent common ancestor (MRCA) between you and your aunt. You descend from your mother, and your mother and your aunt descend from your grandmother. Therefore, your grandmother is the MRCA between you and your aunt.

    This process is exactly the same as the process used to find Mitochondrial Eve, except they do it using mitochondrial DNA (which is only passed through females) instead of just looking at a family tree. Note that in the example, this does not in any way imply:

    1) That your grandmother was the only woman alive at the time.
    2) That your grandmother was the first woman ever to live.

    The exact same conclusions follow from Mitochondrial Eve. There were other women alive at the time, and others before her, but their lineages either died out or they had only male offspring that survived and passed on their genes. That's it. This MRCA thing is just a convergence point, and calling her "Eve" does not in any way imply that she was the actual Eve mentioned in the story of Genesis. She wasn't the first woman, nor was she the only one alive. Just like your grandmother wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have to agree with Jeff here... at one point 150,000 years ago, the human species almost went extinct, and only a small band of 2000 individuals survived. One could suppose that these 2000 individuals all shared the same female ancestor, or alternatively that only one of those surviving women was able to give birth to daughters. But this in no way suggests that there hadn't been other bands or tribes of humans that existed before that; it only means that whoever they were, they didn't have surviving daughters who had children.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. But I wouldn't argue "only one woman" but rather it can al be traced back to one woman, which does not, BTW, refute the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suppose that based on that perspective it does not refute it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Feeno: "That's why Christ is more concerned with the eternal mans soul than the temporal mans well being here on Earth."

    Question. Why does he even care about mortal men's souls? If God created souls, why doesn't he just say 'abracadabra' and make them stop existing, instead of worrying about their eternal salvation?

    It's like being a manager at a steel foundry. And then you got this recycling company bringing empty cans back to the foundry. Is the manager going to say "Oh thank you for bringing my cans back. Put them in my office please, I can still use them." No, he's going to say: "Put them back in the furnace, I've got a big order for sheet metal coming in from the shipyard".

    Why save old stuff if you can just recycle it and make new stuff with it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. JD, sure, fine. But "not refuting the Bible" is not equal to "supporting the Bible." More precisely, Mitochondrial Eve is an example of "completely unrelated to the Bible." So don't try to use it as evidence for your mythology when it gives nothing of the sort.

    ReplyDelete