Why did Jesus have to die to save mankind?

gimme5minutes

Can anyone tell me why exactly? And who made up that rule?

PDN

It wasn't a 'rule' as such.

God had declared that the wages of sin would be death. All men have chosen to sin, therefore we all deserve death.

It seems reasonable to many of us that God, who is a God of love and mercy as well as of truth and justice, would not just simply wink at our sin and pretend it never happened. Therefore, in order to save us, God Himself came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ. He was uniquely able to obtain our salvation for two main reasons.

1. As the only man to live a perfectly sinless life, He was the only one qualified to die on anyone else's behalf.

2. Being divine as well as human, He was the only man who had the capacity to experience infinite pain, and so could endure the suffering of hell, multiplied billions of times over, within a finite period of time. The theologicial term for this is 'penal substitution' - ie taking our place and bearing our punishment.

Turtwig

If you want to discuss the 'rule' side of things, then I doubt that would be appropiate in the Christianity Forum (Maybe A&A:)).

It was an act of Salvation for others.

pts

God could change the "rule" if he wanted to right? He is omnipotent after all.
Also remember that in this forum its is generally agreed that God doesn't have to explain himself to us, and that he works in mysterious ways, so I can't help wondering why he wouldn't just wave his hand and forgive our sins. Why the whole crucify himself bit?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

God had declared that the wages of sin would be death.[...] taking our place and bearing our punishment.

If a problem that a deity created is going to cause the same deity a lot of trouble to fix, then why should the deity bother to declare the problem in the first place?

Or in simpler terms, god had himself killed in order to fulfill the terms of an agreement that he made with himself, to resolve a problem that he created.

It does not make sense, since he could have declared any other reality as he wished.

And to deal with the most obvious religious response before it comes, I don't think that getting oneself killed in accordance with a deal in which one is judge, jury and victim demonstrates commitment or love.

.

PDN

pts wrote: »

God could change the "rule" if he wanted to right? He is omnipotent after all.
Also remember that in this forum its is generally agreed that God doesn't have to explain himself to us, and that he works in mysterious ways, so I can't help wondering why he wouldn't just wave his hand and forgive our sins. Why the whole crucify himself bit?

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

I think thats a very important point. It was a choice to save us, not a rule. He could have wiped us out, and if he fancied it, started again. However, thats obviously not what he wanted. Why did he choose to do what he did rather than just start again? I suppose it's a question that alot of folk ask. I would have idea's on why, but none conclusive. Would be an interesting discussion though.

pts

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

I realise that, so he decided that he wanted to save us. The question remains why did he do it that way? He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

Nor did he have to declare "that the wages of sin would be death."

PDN

pts wrote: »

He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

How do you know He didn't?

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

There's lots of things that finite beings like us don't understand about an infinite God. (a cop out, I know, but true nonetheless)

JimiTime

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

A valid question, which would make for an interesting discussion.

pts wrote: »

He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

This however would be deception and dishonesty, not characteristics that we relate to God. I agree though, that we can speculate that 'He could have done this that or the other.' If we establish though, that he created us in the first place, and created us with the ability to Love etc. Then he placed us in a beautiful Garden and gave us dominion over the earth. I imagine he Loves us. So, I imagine what he did was make the right dscision, whatever we 'think' may have been better. The problem occurs I feel, when someone who doesn't believe in God, starts telling us that he could have done X, Y or Z. Their reasoning does not take God into account, so it fails immediately. If God exists, then whatever you say about 'It would have been better to do this that or the other' is simply barmy, for you are assuming you are wiser, more loving etc than God. If we limit it to human reasoning, with all its shortcomings, we would surely convince ourselves of a way that 'seemed' better. It becomes meaningless and quite idiotic though, if we apply this as a believer.

Fanny Cradock

The following might turn out to be a rambling stream of conciousness on my part, so apologies if that what transpires.

I'm not sure that the applying the word "rule" brings us to a helpful understanding of the issue raised in your latter question, gimme5minutes. I wonder if your question could be better understood by an analogy to our conscience.

I'm going to postulate the following: no one violates the rule of their conscience without some form of trade-off or payment. I'm specifically referring to the rule of conscience because if you break a rule there are resultant consequences. So, for example, the consequence arising after a child steals money from her mother's purse - and err against the rule of conscience in the process - might take the form of guilt.

Now to tie this in with your question. If one accepts the premise that God is perfect, and we are imperfect, there must be some sort of restitution for that imperfection. After all, our imperfection (sin) means we broke and continue to break the rules. In other words, the whole point of sin is that it is something - an act, deed, or thought - against the will of a perfect being. So, for obvious reasons, any forgiveness must come from God.

If God desires to forgive us, but is also to remain "true to himself" - and by this I mean remain true to the principles of logic - he can't simply click his fingers and say that all is forgiven toddle off now. That would make as much sense as saying that you have decided you wont feel guilty before you knowingly do something that violates your rule of conscience. There is a price to be paid and he, through grace, decided to pay it for us.

To leave you with a thought, can you think of any act of forgiveness for a terrible crime that didn't involve some form of payment from the victim

===

Also, by way of afterthought, and for deeper theological reasons, if God simply decided to forgive our sins, I would question if anything had been achieved. Surely such an act could be considered sin redefined, rather than forgiven? Sort of like removing the "do not play on the grass" sign. Jesus' resurrection would not have occurred and I couldn't imagine what that would mean for the promise of a "new heavens and a new earth".

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

2. Being divine as well as human, He was the only man who had the capacity to experience infinite pain, and so could endure the suffering of hell, multiplied billions of times over, within a finite period of time. The theologicial term for this is 'penal substitution' - ie taking our place and bearing our punishment.

Firstly I'd love to see your biblical quote about the 72 hours spent in hell by Jesus being multiplied a billion times over.

If Jesus did suffer on the cross for all of our sins - whether we want them forgiven or not - then he did not do much suffering.

If every sin of every person born after His death until such a time as He comes again (Jesus was at best a failed doomsday prophet) was placed on Jesus in the form of pain then a few hours on a cross (stubbing your toe is probably more painful - not that I've tried it) and 72 hours in hell can in no way act as sufficient 'penal substitution'. If Christianity were true I would expect Jesus to be suffering for our sins, not metaphorically in ancient history, but now and for all to see.

Christopher Hitchens in 'God is not Great' makes a great case for the immorality of scapegoating ones sins onto another. That being said, I just can not see the metaphysical links of how suffering by one leads to forgiveness of another. Perhaps a Christian could explain this as well. To me, 'penal substitution' seems a rather whimsical after-thought to fix a botched plan by an inept God.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Firstly I'd love to see your biblical quote about the 72 hours spent in hell by Jesus being multiplied a billion times over.

I'd love to see a biblical quote that says he spent 72 hours in hell - then I might actually believe that particular assertion.

My understanding of the atonement is based on an overall reading of many passages of Scripture and is one shared by many theologians and biblical scholars.

Those who go for proof texts ("Show me one single verse that says this") usually tend to be pretty narrow-minded fundamentalists or atheist trolls. If you want to understand more I would advise you to try reading a book on the atonement - Jurgen Moltmann is pretty good.

If every sin of every person born after His death until such a time as He comes again (Jesus was at best a failed doomsday prophet) was placed on Jesus in the form of pain then a few hours on a cross (stubbing your toe is probably more painful - not that I've tried it) and 72 hours in hell can in no way act as sufficient 'penal substitution'. If Christianity were true I would expect Jesus to be suffering for our sins, not metaphorically in ancient history, but now and for all to see.

What you expect is neither here nor there. Again, you seem to be getting some unbiblical notion about 72 hours in hell from somewhere.

Christopher Hitchens in 'God is not Great' makes a great case for the immorality of scapegoating ones sins onto another. That being said, I just can not see the metaphysical links of how suffering by one leads to forgiveness of another. Perhaps a Christian could explain this as well. To me, 'penal substitution' seems a rather whimsical after-thought to fix a botched plan by an inept God.

Which only serves to confirm my opinion about Hitchens. His confused thoughts about theology are no more convincing than his cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

How would God suffer anyway....an immortal timeless being, the creator of everything, has complete control, can do anything he wants. How can being nailed to a cross hurt a being that transcends time, space, energy and matter and is in control of every single aspect of every single thing? It is impossible for such an ALL POWERFUL being to feel pain.

Even if he "went to hell" for 3 days how is that supposed to hurt such a being?


And that is the first I heard of this, whatever about the rest of Christianity, this particular 'belief' of spending three days in hell is complete and utter speculation...we've been told all our lives that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why were we never told he also went to hell for 3 days? What happened at the end of the 3 days that enabled him to get out of hell? You are saying he went to hell, then tell us how he got out of it as I have not heard of anyone anyone getting out of hell before.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

In Cur Deus Homo (= why God became man) St. Anselm argues that, since man has sinned against God's justice, only a form of satisfaction that meets His standards of justice can be made in reparation. Thus man has nothing at all to offer God which can serve as a means of payment for his sin. Man has no means of his own of conquering death. So God chose to save man, which required Him becoming fully man while remaining fully divine, in order to suffer divine justice on behalf of mankind.

How does this guy know that "only a form of satisfaction that meets His standards of justice can be made in reparation"? Was he, dare I say it, speculating?

mark renton

pts wrote: »

I realise that, so he decided that he wanted to save us. The question remains why did he do it that way? He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

why not wipe us out and make a better, more improved version? are we not now left with the same issue he solved?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

Crucifixion - a slow, painful death by suffocation - is not much suffering?! :eek: The sloped plinth at the bottom of the cross was not there to look pretty, you know. And the soldiers did not sustain Jesus' life by giving him vinegar for nothing, either.

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

I'd love to see a biblical quote that says he spent 72 hours in hell - then I might actually believe that particular assertion.

After three days He rose again. 3 * 24 = 72 or thereabouts. The actual figure is not important. What is important is that He didn't do enough suffering by many magnitudes.

PDN wrote: »

My understanding of the atonement is based on an overall reading of many passages of Scripture and is one shared by many theologians and biblical scholars.

Those who go for proof texts ("Show me one single verse that says this") usually tend to be pretty narrow-minded fundamentalists or atheist trolls.

Or those requiring proof rather than faith by reading between the lines.

PDN wrote: »

Which only serves to confirm my opinion about Hitchens. His confused thoughts about theology are no more convincing than his cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq.

Such ad hominem attacks serve to deflect the argument. Please deal with the argument. If you read the wiki page for scapegoating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat it is plain to see that Penal substitution is just the manifestation of an ancient superstitious ritual.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

Well see my post above where I said that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. So it was perfectly possible for him to feel pain, just as "normal" humans do.

Was he fully leprachaun too? How can he be fully human and fully divine....that is pure made up fairytales. Your mention of him being fully divine while simultaneously being fully human is pure speculation by that St. Anselm guy you referenced, nothing more. A guy who constructed his speculation to fit his beliefs, well thats proof enough for me!

Whatever way you look at it Jesus = God = all powerful immortal deity who does not feel sensations like hunger, warmth, coldness, pain, sickness, sleepiness, hungover.th

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

How would God suffer anyway....an immortal timeless being, the creator of everything, has complete control, can do anything he wants. How can being nailed to a cross hurt a being that transcends time, space, energy and matter and is in control of every single aspect of every single thing? It is impossible for such an ALL POWERFUL being to feel pain.

You don't see the irony of arguing that an all-powerful God (who can do anything) can't feel pain or suffer (in which case you're saying He can't do everything)?

And that is the first I heard of this, whatever about the rest of Christianity, this particular 'belief' of spending three days in hell is complete and utter speculation...we've been told all our lives that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why were we never told he also went to hell for 3 days?

The issue of three days was (wrongly) raised by an atheist, not a Christian. The Bible is clear that Christ paid for our sins on the Cross while He was alive, not anywhere else after His death.

As for "Why were we never told" - who are the 'we' to which you refer. Most posters here were raised in Catholic Ireland and were told this repeatedly every time the Apostles' Creed was recited. It's got nothing to do with paying for our sins, mind you, but that's another matter.

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

Yes, Jesus Christ certainly did get hungry, sleepy, warm & cold. He almost certainly would have experienced feelings of sexual temptation since he was tempted in all points like us.

He was both fully God and fully man. You might find it ridiculous, but not so many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers that ever lived.

Soul Winner

bSlick wrote: »

Was he fully leprachaun too? How can he be fully human and fully divine....that is pure made up fairytales. Your mention of him being fully divine while simultaneously being fully human is pure speculation by that St. Anselm guy you referenced, nothing more. A guy who constructed his speculation to fit his beliefs, well thats proof enough for me!

Whatever way you look at it Jesus = God = all powerful immortal deity who does not feel sensations like hunger, warmth, coldness, pain, sickness, sleepiness, hungover.th

You are obviously here to teach and not to learn. The scripture states clearly that He was hungry during His temptation in the wilderness and that He was thirsty on the cross and that He also wept on one occasion signifying an emotional pain. How was that possible? The writer to the Hebrews says that He was tempted in all manner as we are yet knew no sin. I know what to do, let us all just throw out our Bibles and listen to you shall we? You seem to know everything there is to know about what an all powerful being can and cannot do.

mark renton

Does this mean that the same thing cannot happen again today as if Christ returned and wanted to save us from our sins then the most punishment he could legally suffer (in most countries) is a few months in prison

Stark

My understanding of the Hell thing was that he died a painful and violent death so his soul could descend to Hell after death. Once in Hell, he was able to lead the sinners who had died before his reign on Earth out of Hell and into salvation.

lugha

I have a rather mundane question. It is asserted by Christians that all men chose to be sinners and so Jesus had to suffer for our redemption. My difficulty is with the assertion that all men are sinners. Surely such an unequivocal claim can not be made unless it is the case that man is utterly incapable of refraining from sin? But if this is so, how can man stand indicted for something which he can not (as opposed to does not) control? Surely logic demands that you permit some possibility, however small, that man can be sinless? In which case there may have been others, besides Jesus, who were also sinless.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

I have a rather mundane question. It is asserted by Christians that all men chose to be sinners and so Jesus had to suffer for our redemption. My difficulty is with the assertion that all men are sinners. Surely such an unequivocal claim can not be made unless it is the case that man is utterly incapable of refraining from sin? But if this is so, how can man stand indicted for something which he can not (as opposed to does not) control? Surely logic demands that you permit some possibility, however small, that man can be sinless? In which case there may have been others, besides Jesus, who were also sinless.

That would only be the case if the assertion that all men are sinners was based on some kind of a priori reasoning. However, the Christian belief on this is based on biblical revelation. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

It is not necessary for Christians to believe that all men are incapable of sinlessness in order to believe that all men are sinners. A revealed fact, or an observed fact, is not contingent upon any other outcome being conceivable.

Maybe an illustration will help if that last paragraph was couched in the wrong kind of language? I believe that no mountain in the world reaches to a height of 50,000 feet above sea level. That is not to say that it was physically impossible for such a mountain to have been formed, simply that those who observe such things have observed that no such mountain exists and the sources that reveal this to me (text books etc) are considered by me to be trustworthy enough for their revelation to be accepted by me.

We may quibble over the reliability of the source providing the revelation, but a revealed fact is not contingent on that fact being the only possible logical outcome.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

Sorry, there is a slight ambiguity here. Presumably you mean the knowledge revealed could not have been obtained using philosophy and logic?

And who specifically was referred to in the revelation in relation to man’s sinfulness. Was it that all men who lived up to the point of the revelation were sinful? Which would permit that a man yet to be born might not, much as we might yet find a 60,000 ft mountain. Or was it that man was inherently sinful, which takes me back to my original problem?

Fanny Cradock

bSlick wrote: »

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

My good man, you seem to miss what Christians believe about the nature of Jesus - that he was human and divine.

::Edit::

I see the point has been made before.

Fanny Cradock

Stark wrote: »

My understanding of the Hell thing was that he died a painful and violent death so his soul could descend to Hell after death. Once in Hell, he was able to lead the sinners who had died before his reign on Earth out of Hell and into salvation.

I've never encountered this before. I would certainly suggest that the NT tells us otherwise.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

That would only be the case if the assertion that all men are sinners was based on some kind of a priori reasoning. However, the Christian belief on this is based on biblical revelation. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

It is not necessary for Christians to believe that all men are incapable of sinlessness in order to believe that all men are sinners. A revealed fact, or an observed fact, is not contingent upon any other outcome being conceivable.

Maybe an illustration will help if that last paragraph was couched in the wrong kind of language? I believe that no mountain in the world reaches to a height of 50,000 feet above sea level. That is not to say that it was physically impossible for such a mountain to have been formed, simply that those who observe such things have observed that no such mountain exists and the sources that reveal this to me (text books etc) are considered by me to be trustworthy enough for their revelation to be accepted by me.

We may quibble over the reliability of the source providing the revelation, but a revealed fact is not contingent on that fact being the only possible logical outcome.

The trouble with epistemology by revelation is that we don't know which ones of the revealed religions is correct. How could we decide? They each have their share of bravery and honour and likewise they have their share of superstitious nonsense, viz talking snakes and flying horses. And with enough mangled interpretation their revelations can be twisted to suit modern day science. One need only to look at the underlying principles of the Biologos Foundation to realise this. Each religion says that theirs is the true one and - by implication, and sometimes explicitly - they say that the others are false. I have debated down this line before and the only sensible response I get is that Christianity has Jesus and it's His martyrdom that most impresses.

When we contrast epistemology by revelation against epistemological empiricism, that is, knowledge comes to us through our senses and evidence, which in the modern day has grown into the scientific method, we realise that the former, God decreed effort, is such a weak foundation for knowledge acquisition.

Zombrex

Good post Hotspace, though possibly OT. I would be interested in a thread about the problems with revelation though not sure the Christian charter would allow it here. Possibly in the A&A forum

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

The trouble with epistemology by revelation is that we don't know which ones of the revealed religions is correct. How could we decide? They each have their share of bravery and honour and likewise they have their share of superstitious nonsense, viz talking snakes and flying horses. And with enough mangled interpretation their revelations can be twisted to suit modern day science. One need only to look at the underlying principles of the Biologos Foundation to realise this. Each religion says that theirs is the true one and - by implication, and sometimes explicitly - they say that the others are false. I have debated down this line before and the only sensible response I get is that Christianity has Jesus and it's His martyrdom that most impresses.

When we contrast epistemology by revelation against epistemological empiricism, that is, knowledge comes to us through our senses and evidence, which in the modern day has grown into the scientific method, we realise that the former, God decreed effort, is such a weak foundation for knowledge acquisition.

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life. It is fine if you're wanting to work out which computer is most suitable for your needs, but is pretty hopeless when it comes to the really big issues such as ethics, politics, morality, and falling in love.

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life. It is fine if you're wanting to work out which computer is most suitable for your needs, but is pretty hopeless when it comes to the really big issues such as ethics, politics, morality, and falling in love.

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

Well, I think we've seen what the Old Testament says about ethics and morality. And the New Testament is Human Sacrifice writ large.

Francis Collins makes the same assertions as you when he says that the Moral Law is ineffable and the ineffable must point to God. Obviously he is blatantly ignorant, and one would conclude so are you, of the host of disciplines that dissect the human condition by empiricism. He, and you are saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others. All those disciplines have as their root empiricism. What ground breaking knowledge has the theologian (who uses epistemology by revelation) ever given us - save God did it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

So is epistemological revelation. You have no idea if what you believe about Christianity is actually true. You think it is, and are happy thinking it is, but you can't determine or test that belief it is in any significant way. It might not be and you would be none the wiser because the basis for your belief is not empirical.

There is a huge difference between accepting an answer that you and others are happy to accept and accepting an answer because you have determined it is likely true in a manner that can be tested and studied.

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

That is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. Again there is a difference between accepting an answer and the answer being actually true.

King appealing to people through the idea that God wants us all to live in peace and harmony strikes a cord with people even if it isn't true.

So it becomes an issue of priorities, whether the important thing is that the answer is appealing or whether the answer is true. Do you care whether what you believe is true or not, or is the important thing that you are happy to accept it.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Well, I think we've seen what the Old Testament says about ethics and morality. And the New Testament is Human Sacrifice writ large.

Francis Collins makes the same assertions as you when he says that the Moral Law is ineffable and the ineffable must point to God. Obviously he is blatantly ignorant, and one would conclude so are you, of the host of disciplines that dissect the human condition by empiricism. He, and you are saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others. All those disciplines have as their root empiricism. What ground breaking knowledge has the theologian (who uses epistemology by revelation) ever given us - save God did it.

It is generally unwise in a debate to assume that your opponent is as narrow minded as you are. It leads you into the kind of fallacy and false allegation such as you have just made above and which torpedos your credibility.

You are trying to present this as an either/or thing. That empiricism must be the only way to gain knowledge, or revelation must be the only way to gain knowledge. Then you project that dogmatism and narrow mindedness onto others.

But Francis Collins and myself would say that both are valid means of obtaining different kinds of knowledge. Empiricism and revelation.

So to accuse us of saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others is nothing more than a blatant falsehood.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So to accuse us of saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others is nothing more than a blatant falsehood.

In fairness that was the impression you gave from this sentence -

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

What are you saying by saying that empiricism is inadequate for answering many of the most important areas of life if not that we shouldn't bother trying to answer these questions with empiricism. That is certainly what Collins is saying, and why he got the backs up of so many scientists.

Fanny Cradock

Dear me! It seems like you and (most especially) Hotspace are intent upon working yourselves up into some sort of frenzy. That Collins is under attack in this thread suggests to me that there is some latent grudge being addressed, rather than making a point that is specificity relevant to this thread.

The statement that epistemological empiricism alone is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life seems an eminently wise and an entirely reasonable position to take. Really, let's not loose the plot and imagine that something outrageous was said.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Dear me! It seems like you and (most especially) Hotspace are intent upon working yourselves up into some sort of frenzy. That Collins is under attack in this thread suggests to me that there is some latent grudge being addressed, rather than making a point that is specificity relevant to this thread.

Hey, I said at the start all this discussion is some what OT, but PDN seemed happy to run with it (while throwing in the odd personal attack). And he is a Mod, who am I to argue with a mod :P

More than happy to take the discussion some where else

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The statement that epistemological empiricism alone is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life seems an eminently wise and an entirely reasonable position to take.

It does

Ok, have to disagree with you there, but again more than happy to discuss this on another thread.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

In fairness that was the impression you gave from this sentence -

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

What are you saying by saying that empiricism is inadequate for answering many of the most important areas of life if not that we shouldn't bother trying to answer these questions with empiricism. That is certainly what Collins is saying, and why he got the backs up of so many scientists.

No, in fairness that would only be the impression gained by someone who is determined to reach a certain conclusion, or who has problems with the English language. Let's apply a little bit of exegesis to what I said.

By using the word 'alone' instead of 'at all' I indicated that a reasonable approach to gaining knowledge is empiricism + something else, rather than empiricism alone. There was not even a remote hint in that sentence that empiricism should be abandoned.

Also, by saying that empiricism alone is inadequate for 'many of' rather than 'all' or even 'most of' the most important areas of life allows that empiricism is adequate for some of the most important areas of life.

And yes, Francis Collins is pretty OT (not to say OTT) in this thread, and I should have stomped on it rather than encouraging Hotspace in that regard, but do please try to understand that, for a scientific dunce such as myself, being bracketed along with one of the world's most accomplished scientists was too intoxicating not to savour the moment for a while.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

By using the word 'alone' instead of 'at all' I indicated that a reasonable approach to gaining knowledge is empiricism + something else, rather than empiricism alone. There was not even a remote hint in that sentence that empiricism should be abandoned.

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt that is what you meant the reason I think for the confusing is that makes very little sense.

How do you use empiricism with something else that is not empirical in other to enhance empiricism while still maintaining empiricism?. By the very nature of using "something" else that isn't empirical you won't be using something that is empirical.

You can see, I hope, the confusing. You are basically saying that you did not mean to suggest that we abandon empiricism while suggesting we use something that lacks the properties of empiricism because empiricism won't do.

Anywhoo, Fanny is getting concerned so again I'm happy to continue this in this thread or in other thread. Just don't blame me for dragging this thread off topic.

Phototoxin

robindch wrote: »

If a problem that a deity created is going to cause the same deity a lot of trouble to fix, then why should the deity bother to declare the problem in the first place?

Or in simpler terms, god had himself killed in order to fulfill the terms of an agreement that he made with himself, to resolve a problem that he created.

It does not make sense, since he could have declared any other reality as he wished.

And to deal with the most obvious religious response before it comes, I don't think that getting oneself killed in accordance with a deal in which one is judge, jury and victim demonstrates commitment or love.

.

this is my main issue with Christianity (aka Original Sin) - if anyone can explain it better please pm me or something

Hotspace

I'm happy to start another thread on the subject of Epistemological Revelation Vs. Epistemological Empiricism. You may have to wait a week or so for me to start it.

To drag the thread back to its original subject:

PDN wrote: »

You don't see the irony of arguing that an all-powerful God (who can do anything) can't feel pain or suffer (in which case you're saying He can't do everything)?

Maybe the irony is lost on you. If we grant that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine and therefore omniscient then he is fully capable of not allowing himself to feel pain. To therefore put himself under pain was an act of masochism.

PDN wrote: »

The issue of three days was (wrongly) raised by an atheist, not a Christian. The Bible is clear that Christ paid for our sins on the Cross while He was alive, not anywhere else after His death.

Ok, how long did he spend in Hell, if indeed, he did and a rough estimate would suffice. The issue isn't where he paid for our sins but that he didn't suffer enough for every sin ever committed. Imagine the amount of sins committed from the crucifixion until the second coming and your mind boggles at the number. A few measly hours on the cross can only be considered a metaphorical suffering.

axer

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

The question is, when he hammered the nail into his left hand, how did he hammer the nail into his right?

Or maybe, he was 'killed' by crucifixion, by the ruling Roman empire? just a thought.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Maybe the irony is lost on you. If we grant that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine and therefore omniscient then he is fully capable of not allowing himself to feel pain. To therefore put himself under pain was an act of masochism.

Nobody is denying that, if He wished, Jesus was capable of not allowing Himself to feel pain. However, such a trick would mean that the Cross was not a payment of our sins. It would be like printing up counterfeit money in order to pay someone else's fine - and then to pretend that it cost you something.

Ok, how long did he spend in Hell, if indeed, he did and a rough estimate would suffice.

I don't think He spent any time in hell, since hell didn't even exist yet. The doctrine of penal substitution is that Jesus bore the pains of hell for us, not that he went to hell as a location. The Bible says that Christ bore our sins in His Body when He was on the Cross - so possibly we're talking about 3 hours.

The issue isn't where he paid for our sins but that he didn't suffer enough for every sin ever committed.

Ten out of ten for the first part of that sentence - zero out of ten for the second part.

Imagine the amount of sins committed from the crucifixion until the second coming and your mind boggles at the number. A few measly hours on the cross can only be considered a metaphorical suffering.

Nope. An omnipotent infinite Being should be up to the task of concentrating suffering to such an intensity as to be condensed into a short space of time.

PDN

axer wrote: »

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

No & no.