The Crucifixtion - Why?

Statistician

People say that Jesus died for us. He was crucified for our sins.

What does this mean exactly? How does the crucifixion of someone save us?

Why also crucifixion?

Jesus' suffering was minor compared to suffering that others have suffered.
For physical pain, consider those medieval torture instruments where people could spend days in excruciating pain, not a few hours like Jesus. For a more recent example, the Japanese weren't too friendly to their captives during world war two. Some of the stuff that went on there was horrendous. I'd easily pick a crucifixion over it.

For humiliation, consider the stocks. People would be raped and otherwise humiliated in these.

Mental pain, well the loss of a child surely has to be far worse than what Jesus experienced. Remember that Jesus knew there was an afterlife, which is more than everyone else has.

Why was He executed for our sins? Is this what was said at His trial? You are to be executed for all the sins of mankind, past, present and future?

alex73

Statistician wrote: »

Jesus' suffering was minor compared to suffering that others have suffered.

What flog him half to death, crown with Thorns and nail him to a cross?

Also Christ knew this would happen.

in any standard it was a horrific death and torture.

Statistician

alex73 wrote: »

What flog him half to death, crown with Thorns and nail him to a cross?

Also Christ knew this would happen.

in any standard it was a horrific death and torture.

I'm just pointing out that others have suffered worse, both mentally and physically. Jesus had the benefit of being speared. Other people who were crucified might have spent days in agony.

Christ knew it would happen. He also knew there was an afterlife.

What flog him half to death, crown with Thorns and nail him to a cross?

(If you read about common traits of crucifixion, these elements don't seem too bad. The foot rest commonly depicted wasn't for comfort, but was to prolong the agony. Some crucifixes had spikes for impalement. Jesus would probably have been completely naked, so flies and other insects would collect around any body excretions.)

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

He also knew there was an afterlife.

This is kind of crucial. To make a trivial comparison, you'd be devastated if the Irish soccer team lost to Andorra in a WC qualifier, but if you knew beforehand that they'd recover, qualify and win the WC afterwards, you wouldn't be nearly so upset.

alex73

Statistician wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that others have suffered worse, both mentally and physically. Jesus had the benefit of being speared. Other people who were crucified might have spent days in agony.

Christ knew it would happen. He also knew there was an afterlife.

Because he choose to do it for us. Made it quit evident he died and then rose from the dead.

Statistician

alex73 wrote: »

Because he choose to do it for us.

Please could you explain this a bit more?

In order to forgive our sins, Jesus decided to get crucified? Why?

3ndahalfof6

Statistician wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that others have suffered worse, both mentally and physically. Jesus had the benefit of being speared. Other people who were crucified might have spent days in agony.

Christ knew it would happen. He also knew there was an afterlife.


(If you read about common traits of crucifiction, these elements don't seem too bad. The foot rest commonly depicted wasn't for comfort, but was to prolong the agony. Some crucifixes had spikes for impalement. Jesus would probably have been completely naked, so flies and other insects would collect around any body excretions.)

interesting crucifixes, with an x

Statistician

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

interesting crucifixes, with an x

Crucifix
Crucify
Crucifiction
Crucified

How do you spell Crucifiction? -with an 'x'?

Zombrex

Statistician wrote: »

Jesus' suffering was minor compared to suffering that others have suffered.

I think mainstream Christianity believes that he did not just suffer a crucifixion but suffered the experience of hell for all those he saved. I'm not a Christian you might want to get that clarified.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I think mainstream Christianity believes that he did not just suffer a crucifixion but suffered the experience of hell for all those he saved. I'm not a Christian you might want to get that clarified.

That would be correct. The spiritual suffering was much greater than the physical torment.

marty1985

But doesn't viewing the method of dying miss the point? My understanding is that the point was not to have the most gruesome and tortuous death possible, as if it would equate with what others might suffer, the point was to die as a criminal being punished. I think also there's some symbolic merit in the cross, ie. the biblical references of him being "hung from a tree" which evokes the eating of the fruit of the tree, which in turn is necessary in explaining it.

The crucifix is a violently obscene icon in many ways. We've just gotten desensitized to it.

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

That would be correct. The spiritual suffering was much greater than the physical torment.

But why was the spiritual suffering so great? Unlike us, he knew he had a 'get out of jail free' card. The guys crucified before and after him would have surely suffered more, not knowing their fate.

Statistician

Zombrex wrote: »

I think mainstream Christianity believes that he did not just suffer a crucifixion but suffered the experience of hell for all those he saved. I'm not a Christian you might want to get that clarified.

What I remember from school, was that Hell is not being able to see God. The Fire and Brimstone model of hell is outdated.

This presents its own paradox. How could Christ experience anything to do with Hell?

gimmebroadband

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why was the spiritual suffering so great? Unlike us, he knew he had a 'get out of jail free' card. The guys crucified before and after him would have surely suffered more, not knowing their fate.

Reflection on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ +

The agony in the garden was really the agony in His mind. He suffered the passion in His mind before He suffered it in His body—to the point of actually affecting the latter by sweating blood. But from then on, it was His bodily suffering that affected His mental suffering.

At the base of all His suffering was the one thing that human beings dread the most: rejection. He was betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter and abandoned by all the rest of His Apostles; those He had hand picked as His closest intimates. He was most rejected by those who put Him to death. They not only wanted Him dead, they wanted Him to suffer. They not only considered Him to be worth nothing, they considered Him to be worth minus nothing! This significance was not lost on Him. He felt fully the rejection as each physical agony reminded Him.

So we thank Him for joining us on our human journey and actually choosing to experience what we fear the most.

We thank Him for enduring the arrest and the cruelty of the guards and the Sanhedrin. We thank Him for enduring the cruelty of Pilate who allowed Him to be executed rather than risk his own political ruin—and for the cruelty of Herod who wanted to be entertained by having Him work a miracle. We thank Him for all the time He spent satisfying their preoccupation with themselves, just delaying His ultimate death. We thank Him for the anxiety of that night in a cell.

The next morning He was brutally scourged with such intensity and violence that He became as an aged man in a matter of minutes. His multiple wounds bloodied His entire body. The loss of so much blood not only severely weakened Him; it also caused a severe, throbbing headache that remained with Him for the duration.

We thank Him for this and for the mockery He received when they put a purple cloth on His shoulders and pushed a crown of thorns down into His head which intensified His headache. They blindfolded Him and slapped Him, insisting that He ‘prophesy’ who had hit Him. They spat on Him and beat Him.

He stood at the praetorium in utter disgrace according to the attitude of the crowd—while in reality, He stood in utter glory: almighty God, being present to every person who has ever suffered rejection, joining them in their moment of pain. It was there that He was sentenced to death by crucifixion. Physically, He was utterly miserable. He revealed to St. Bernard that carrying the cross was His most painful agony. He was so weak, He could hardly walk. Nauseous and thirsty, He found the weight of the cross on His shoulder almost unbearable. It most likely dislocated His shoulder. It is not surprising that He fell down on the stone streets that were filthy with animal dung—with the cross on top of Him. And He got up each time.

It was only with the help of Simon of Cyrene that He made it to the top of Calvary. There they drove the nails into the carpal tunnels of His hands, causing pain throughout His upper body. The nail in His feet registered great pain through all the sensitive nerves there. When the cross was righted, His up-stretched arms squeezed His lungs and He began to pant for lack of oxygen. So He had to push down on His crucified feet to push His body up in order to fill His lungs with air. This took great effort because He was so weak. Yet He managed to maintain such effort for three hours of agony which increased gradually as He became weaker moment by moment.

By the end of the third hour, His agony was at its peak. He had come to the point where His strength simply gave out and He suffocated. In this eternal moment as He died, He gave us His life. Transcending time, this moment of divine love is present to us in the tabernacles of the world.

Thank you, Lord. We adore you O Christ and we praise you. By your holy cross, you have redeemed the world.

marty1985

Statistician wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

I think mainstream Christianity believes that he did not just suffer a crucifixion but suffered the experience of hell for all those he saved. I'm not a Christian you might want to get that clarified.

What I remember from school, was that Hell is not being able to see God. The Fire and Brimstone model of hell is outdated.

This presents its own paradox. How could Christ experience anything to do with Hell?

But it's the same as when he asked why he had been abandoned. Perhaps it's the same paradox, and I think it's a mystery related to the trinity. He was fully human right? So it would have suffered in his human nature?

dlofnep

It seems strange that for 100,000 years God looks upon the human population with indifference, allowing mass suffering and disease.. Waiting 98,000 years to finally decide to intervene and have his only son killed so that our sins may be forgiven. Which btw, was apparently jeopardised in the first place by an individual who decided to listen to a snake, and eat a piece of fruit. What I take from that is essentially that, we are not only responsible for our own actions, but also the actions of people who predated us by 1000's of years.

I don't follow the logic of the crucifixion story I'm afraid. It is certainly feasible that a preacher by the name of Jesus in bronze-age Palestine was crucified for his beliefs.. but less feasible to believe that the previous paragraph could in anyway be ever true.

marty1985

dlofnep wrote: »

It seems strange that for 100,000 years God looks upon the human population with indifference, allowing mass suffering and disease.. Waiting 98,000 years to finally decide to intervene and have his only son killed so that our sins may be forgiven. Which btw, was apparently jeopardised in the first place by an individual who decided to listen to a snake, and eat a piece of fruit. What I take from that is essentially that, we are not only responsible for our own actions, but also the actions of people who predated us by 1000's of years.

I don't follow the logic of the crucifixion story I'm afraid. It is certainly feasible that a preacher by the name of Jesus in bronze-age Palestine was crucified for his beliefs.. but less feasible to believe that the previous paragraph could in anyway be ever true.

But the first paragraph isn't true according to Christians and Jews is it? Don't they believe he was constantly intervening? The Old Testament God is hardly indifferent.

Fanny Cradock

It's interesting that you would relegate the pain suffered during crucifixion. The work excruciating (as in "excruciating pain") is derived from the the Latin excruciātus which itself relates to the pain suffered during crucifixion.

But all this is is besides the point. Christianity isn't claiming that Jesus suffered the greatest physical pain ever suffered by a human and therefore we should worship him. Nor are we saying that he suffered the greatest mental anguish and therefore we should worship him. What we are saying is that on top of these he suffered the greatest spiritual pain. More importantly, what we are claiming is that because of the sacrifice we can receive something rather special.

Any time I see this type of objection (Jesus knew he was going to rise again so it's no biggie) I can't help but think there is a deep inconsistency at play. It's like saying that the million given to you by a stranger on the street is somehow less valuable to you because she has 100 million in the bank. Or the contribution of the King who decides to roll up his sleeves and work in the fields with the peasants is inherently less valuable because he is a King.

The point is that there is always a price to pay and the most innocent individual paid that price instead of the most guilty. That's it. All attempts to weigh up the suffering of Jesus in relative terms misses this.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's like saying that the million given to you by a stranger on the street is somehow less valuable to you because she has 100 million in the bank.

Ah but, it is less valuable in terms of the sacrifice made by the person granting it. Didn't the lord himself cover this in the anecdote of the Widow's mite?

dlofnep

marty1985 wrote: »

But the first paragraph isn't true according to Christians and Jews is it? Don't they believe he was constantly intervening? The Old Testament God is hardly indifferent.

Well that depends on who you ask. Some will deny that humans have lived on earth longer than 6,000 years. Others will tell you that only through Jesus were we saved.

The Old Testament God was vile, and ruthless. Ad if he was not indifferent, then why was it required of Jesus to be crucified so that our sins may be forgiven?

Monty Burnz

gimmebroadband wrote: »

At the base of all His suffering was the one thing that human beings dread the most: rejection. He was betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter and abandoned by all the rest of His Apostles; those He had hand picked as His closest intimates. He was most rejected by those who put Him to death. They not only wanted Him dead, they wanted Him to suffer. They not only considered Him to be worth nothing, they considered Him to be worth minus nothing! This significance was not lost on Him. He felt fully the rejection as each physical agony reminded Him.

On the other hand, he knew he was God, he would rise from the dead, be all-powerful, and could create another universe or wipe out this one as he saw fit. So I don't see why rejection by his friends was such a big deal. Many people suffer this type of rejection every day, without the consolation of knowing they are God.

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ah but, it is less valuable in terms of the sacrifice made by the person granting it. Didn't the lord himself cover this in the anecdote of the Widow's mite?

Notice how I said to you. Again, I have to point out that you and the OP are missing the larger picture. We aren't just talking about the cost that was levelled at God's feet - something not to be ignore in my book - we are also talking about what this means in terms of salvation.

dlofnep wrote: »

The Old Testament God was vile, and ruthless

Please try to remember where you are.

dlofnep

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please try to remember where you are.

Apologies, I wasn't attempting to be frivolous. There was an important point in that statement, as I was attempting to address to logic behind the crucifixion and had to create a parallel to how life was prior to the life of Jesus.

wolfsbane

The suffering of Christ had two aspects. One was the mental and physical suffering of crucifixion; awful, but something experienced by many others.

The other was the spiritual suffering - God's wrath being visited upon Christ's spirit. That is, the hell-fire that was due to His people was suffered by Him in their place. A substitutionary atonement. Now they have a clean record before God. Their crimes paid for in full.

Remember what that entails: the eternity of punishment each and every Christian deserved was endured by Christ in the time on the cross. Only the true God could pay that in finite time; only a true Man could represent us.

*********************************************************************
Isaiah 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

wolfsbane

dlofnep wrote: »

It seems strange that for 100,000 years God looks upon the human population with indifference, allowing mass suffering and disease.. Waiting 98,000 years to finally decide to intervene and have his only son killed so that our sins may be forgiven. Which btw, was apparently jeopardised in the first place by an individual who decided to listen to a snake, and eat a piece of fruit. What I take from that is essentially that, we are not only responsible for our own actions, but also the actions of people who predated us by 1000's of years.

I don't follow the logic of the crucifixion story I'm afraid. It is certainly feasible that a preacher by the name of Jesus in bronze-age Palestine was crucified for his beliefs.. but less feasible to believe that the previous paragraph could in anyway be ever true.

Mass suffering and disease followed on from man's Fall in Eden. God promised then that He would send a deliverer, one who would bruise Satan's head. The sacrifices in the OT pointed to that One who would be the perfect sacrifice for sins. Christ's death paid for all the sins of all His people, from the beginning of creation until the End.

Indeed, the plan to redeem His lost people was made in eternity, before the world was created. God is never surprised, but works all things according to His good purposes.

*******************************************************************
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

The other was the spiritual suffering - God's wrath being visited upon Christ's spirit. That is, the hell-fire that was due to His people was suffered by Him in their place. A substitutionary atonement. Now they have a clean record before God. Their crimes paid for in full

But seeing as Christ is God, isn't there an element of sado-masochism here? He hurts himself to redeem us?

dlofnep

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mass suffering and disease followed on from man's Fall in Eden.

Does it seem fair or just that the actions of one individual would reverberate for 1000's of years? Outside of the fact that we know the story of Eden to be false, because that's here nor there.

The idea that we should suffer because on individual took it upon himself to sample a forbidden fruit doesn't seem logical.

Helix

why did he have to get crucified at all? i dont get that bit

you have god, who controls everything yeah? so why does he need to create a son, send him to earth and have him crucified in order to absolve man of sin. why didnt he just absolve the sin without the crucifixion? surely he could have done that?

what was to be gained in that whole side of things?

was it to pull the whole bit that he dies in front of all these people, and then rises again. making it quite public?

surely there would have been better ways to do that?

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But seeing as Christ is God, isn't there an element of sado-masochism here? He hurts himself to redeem us?

When we talk about God we talk about a being that is the ground source of everything, including things like justice. That's why there is a big clash between a world view that states "Dachau is wrong is not a fact" and one that says there are absolute rights and wrongs.

That God went through all this rather than ignore our sin tells me that God isn't separable from his nature. Rather, he is consistent with it. There is always a price to pay, and in this case God paid it himself.

Tom Wright gives a good talk on the resurrection here.

marty1985

dlofnep wrote: »

Does it seem fair or just that the actions of one individual would reverberate for 1000's of years? Outside of the fact that we know the story of Eden to be false, because that's here nor there.

The idea that we should suffer because on individual took it upon himself to sample a forbidden fruit doesn't seem logical.

Whether of not it factually happened is indeed neither here nor there, as I think most Christians believe it to contain spiritual truth rather than factual truth, because I think everyone agrees that it uses figurative language. I think it's a myth with value - a story that tells us something truthful to the human experience (myth meaning a story that contains truth that doesn't depend on factual correctness.)

The idea of a "fall" is actually common in various societies. In Greek mythology for example, humans were immortal during the Golden Age, until Pandora got curious and released evil into the world.

All good stories happen when you go where you're not supposed to go. It's important to remember that the story arises in a Jewish culture, and they interpret the story differently from Christians, and I think even Catholics and Protestants interpret it differently too. For Jews, I think it's more a lesson in primal disobedience, growing up, a transition from childhood to adulthood and learning the difference between right and wrong.

I think the interpretation of sin in the story is a Christian one, and other posters will expand on that. This has piqued my interest and I'd like to read more up on it, but I think it's a lesson of how we have a broken relationship with God because of sin, and we had been atoning for it with sacrifices until God himself became the sacrificial lamb.

I do get confused when people say "why did God create a son and have him crucified", because it was God himself that got crucified, right? As for why didn't he just forgive sins, well, it seems to me that would be pointless, and negate the importance of justice and fairness, and wouldn't teach much of a lesson, because the crucifixion seems to be of very high symbolic value. And also, it was fulfilling prophesies thereby in dying he was proving he was the messiah. I'm not really a believer, but I do think the bible is great to read for its literary value, and that's what my understanding would be from a literary standpoint.

Personally, I believe there may be some historical truth in the myth, insofar as the Edenic period might actually refer to hunter-gathering, followed by a "fall", no more egalitarianism etc. Others have presented this theory before, and I'd need to read up on this theory more, so I'll just shut my big mouth now.

Monty.

Helix wrote: »

why did he have to get crucified at all? i dont get that bit

you have god, who controls everything yeah? so why does he need to create a son, send him to earth and have him crucified in order to absolve man of sin. why didnt he just absolve the sin without the crucifixion? surely he could have done that?

what was to be gained in that whole side of things ?

was it to pull the whole bit that he dies in front of all these people, and then rises again. making it quite public?

surely there would have been better ways to do that?

Because God the Father's honour had to be restored after the disgrace and rejection of the fall, where, by man, by abusing his God given free will, rejected innocence, and embraced the knowledge and craft of evil along with Satan.

No human sacrifice could ever atone for such a rebellion.

And so The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

What greater sacrifice can God make than to humble himself in such a way and give all mankind a second chance. What a divinely perfect example he gave us in his son Jesus Christ, who showed us how to live, love God and love one another, and endure the suffering and humiliation caused on earth by the evil of men and their willingness to listen to temptations of Satan.

No man comes to the Father except though the Son.

liamw

What is spiritual pain and how does it manifest itself if not physically?

Helix

Monty. wrote: »

Because God the Father's honour had to be restored

restored to who? if he's almighty then he has nobody to answer to, so mortal concerns like honour and pride should be of absolutely no concern to him

this is what i dont get. if he answers only to himself, there is absolutely no need for any of the stuff he gets up to. no need to send part of himself to earth to be crucified, since he could just say "right, sins absolved", no need for anyone to disobey him since he could say "right, you can't disobey me" and no need for him to prove some kind of honour to himself, since he would be the one to define what honour was to begin with

no?

Monty. wrote: »

the evil of men and their willingness to listen to temptations of Satan.

sure god is the way who made men that way, so is it just a case of him saying "you know what, i made a balls of this, hang on til i fix it"? couldnt he have just fixed it without all the shenannigans of crucifixion since he's all powerful though? he can do whatever he wants if he is all powerful and all present cant he?

marty1985

Helix wrote: »

restored to who? if he's almighty then he has nobody to answer to, so mortal concerns like honour and pride should be of absolutely no concern to him

this is what i dont get. if he answers only to himself, there is absolutely no need for any of the stuff he gets up to. no need to send part of himself to earth to be crucified, since he could just say "right, sins absolved"

These are good questions. I think also though that the whole thing doesn't make sense without anyone mentioning what is supposed to have happened next: the resurrection. Surely, it is all pointless anyway and the crucifixion unnecessary, unless of course the resurrection happened? I'm thinking of Milton's four-word summary of the Bible, "Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained", which makes me think that perhaps he couldn't pay for the sin of mankind without dying and letting people share in the resurrection, but I'm getting out of my depth here!

marty1985

As an afterthought, I guess it didn't make sense to anyone at the time either, since nobody expected it to happen, not even his closest followers. It didn't make sense to them either. And certainly not to any of the Jews, as it was nobody's idea of a Messiah. Isn't this, then, what separates Jews from Christians? That it can only make sense if you believe the resurrection happened, that paradise can be regained? If indeed Jesus of Nazareth is currently mingled with the dust of Palestine then the whole thing makes no sense.

Monty.

Helix wrote: »

restored to who? if he's almighty then he has nobody to answer to, so mortal concerns like honour and pride should be of absolutely no concern to him

this is what i dont get. if he answers only to himself, there is absolutely no need for any of the stuff he gets up to. no need to send part of himself to earth to be crucified, since he could just say "right, sins absolved", no need for anyone to disobey him since he could say "right, you can't disobey me" and no need for him to prove some kind of honour to himself, since he would be the one to define what honour was to begin with

no?



sure god is the way who made men that way, so is it just a case of him saying "you know what, i made a balls of this, hang on til i fix it"? couldnt he have just fixed it without all the shenannigans of crucifixion since he's all powerful though? he can do whatever he wants if he is all powerful and all present cant he?

You misunderstand the concept of free will.

God so loved us, he created us with free will to choose if we wish to love him or not.

This is one of the prime reasons there is no irruftable proof that God does or does not exist. He gives you enough light to find him if you truly want to. If you love God, you will freely choose to obey his commandments.

This short life is learning process and test for the eternal life to come.
Man can choose how he wishes to spend eternity, in the presence of the infinate spirt that is God, or in the eternal darkness without him. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside, it is self chosen isolation from God.

Like any loving Parent, God wants us to choose whether to be with him or not, not pretend to love him. Without free will we would just be automatons. Satan used his freewill to reject God. Man used his freewill to listen to Satans temptations regarding knowlege, hence the rejection of God and the fall of man. No man could ever provide a sacrifice that would make up and undo this rejection of God and acceptance of Satan.

Fanny Cradock

marty1985 wrote: »

These are good questions. I think also though that the whole thing doesn't make sense without anyone mentioning what is supposed to have happened next: the resurrection. Surely, it is all pointless anyway and the crucifixion unnecessary, unless of course the resurrection happened? I'm thinking of Milton's four-word summary of the Bible, "Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained", which makes me think that perhaps he couldn't pay for the sin of mankind without dying and letting people share in the resurrection, but I'm getting out of my depth here!

If you get around to watching/ listening to the link I posted you will find that the centrality of resurrection is discussed. The claim is that resurrection is not just a mightily odd thing that happened once some 2000 years ago. Both Jews (excluding the Sadducees etc) and Christians expected a full bodily resurrection for all at the end of time.

But you are correct. Nothing makes sense without the resurrection. This is something Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 15 v12-19. Actually, all of chapter 15 is relevant to your post, I think.

Helix

Monty. wrote: »

You misunderstand the concept of free will.

you cannot have free will and an all powerful god existing at the same time

if we have free will then god can not change what we do, nor can our paths be predetermined, yet if we DO have free will and our paths aren't predetermined, then god is not all poweful

Helix

Monty. wrote: »

This short life is learning process and test for the eternal life to come.
Man can choose how he wishes to spend eternity, in the presence of the infinate spirt that is God, or in the eternal darkness without him. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside, it is self chosen isolation from God.

Like any loving Parent, God wants us to choose whether to be with him or not, not pretend to love him. Without free will we would just be automatons. Satan used his freewill to reject God. Man used his freewill to listen to Satans temptations regarding knowlege, hence the rejection of God and the fall of man. No man could ever provide a sacrifice that would make up and undo this rejection of God and acceptance of Satan.

this is another thing i dont get about it. if god created us all, then why are some of us predisposed not to believing in things that seem unrealistic. surely in giving free will and intelligence a creator would fully accept that there will be people who interpret things in a different way, and i would have thought that this kind of thought process would be perfectly acceptable, given that he was the one who made it possible in the first place

Monty.

Helix wrote: »

you cannot have free will and an all powerful god existing at the same time

if we have free will then god can not change what we do, nor can our paths be predetermined, yet if we DO have free will and our paths aren't predetermined, then god is not all poweful

Parents can exist even if they grant their children free will.

God can forsee if you will choose to sin or not, but the choice is your own.

dlofnep

Monty. wrote: »

Parents can exist even if they grant their children free will.

God can forsee if you will choose to sin or not, but the choice is your own.

All animals have free will. What makes homo sapiens so special in this regard? Who exactly would see to it that we did not have free will?

Monty.

Helix wrote: »

this is another thing i dont get about it. if god created us all, then why are some of us predisposed not to believing in things that seem unrealistic. surely in giving free will and intelligence a creator would fully accept that there will be people who interpret things in a different way, and i would have thought that this kind of thought process would be perfectly acceptable, given that he was the one who made it possible in the first place

In other words if you succumb to the belief that you are too smart to believe in God. One of Satan's greatest tricks is to use your intellectual vanity against you. God is not an old man in the sky with a beard sitting on a cloud, God is a spirit.

Our tiny human minds are too small to comprehend the physicality of this universe, never mind the billions of other universes that may be out there, never mind an infinite metaphysical spirit such as God.

Monty.

dlofnep wrote: »

All animals have free will. What makes homo sapiens so special in this regard? Who exactly would see to it that we did not have free will?

Animals do not make moral choices, which is what we mean by free will. They act on instinct, not on whether or not they should or shouldn't do/say/think something. This is why they are called innocent. They cannot decide whether or not they will serve God, for instance. Just their being what God made them is serving him. The Genesis account tells us that only human beings were given any command by God requiring they make a moral decision, therefore only human beings could decide whether to obey God's command or not. We're speaking here about physical beings, not the angelic spirits who also had free will when they were created. (and Satan and a third of the angels used their free will to rebel against God)

Fanny Cradock

Helix wrote: »

you cannot have free will and an all powerful god existing at the same time

That really depends on what you mean by all powerful. If Christianity says that God is all powerful then that statement isn't undone if we also say that he can't make square circles or married bachelors. God is self-consistent. Similarly, if we say that God has granted us some degree of sovereignty over our own lives then our choosing something against his will isn't a sign of his weakness. Rather, our autonomy is ultimately a function of his will.

But perhaps you can expand on your point and explain exactly why one precludes the other.

dlofnep

Monty. wrote: »

Animals do not make moral choices, which is what we mean by free will.

Actually they do, and it's well documented in zoology and ecology. Moral understanding exists, not because a deity gave us 'free will' - But rather because we are an evolved species, with a complex social structure, that requires of us to make decisions that may affect our social status. Other primates follow a general moral code - The more intelligent the species, than more complex the moral code.

Morality isn't set in stone. It has evolved over time. What was immoral 2000 years ago, might be moral today. For example - in the early 20th century, contraception was seen as immoral. It is now seen as a moral and mature choice.

So if morals evolve over time - that it is clearly because of the evolution of our social structure, and not because we were offered 'free will'. If we did not have free will - what would the alternative be for such an intelligent and socially cohesive species?

Fanny Cradock

dlofnep wrote: »

If we did not have free will - what would the alternative be for such an intelligent and socially cohesive species?

That's really the question, isn't it? I would assume that theists of all sorts - specifically those who believe in objective morality - would say that if morality is worth a damn it must be grounded in something beyond us. If it's not then the moral outrage we may feel over something like the Dachau concentration camp is at root illusory - like love. Again, Russell recognised that on his world view the statement "Dachau is wrong is not a fact" was consistent with it.

Incidentally, I don't see any problem with an evolved morality in respect to the teachings of Christianity. It fits in quite nicely with the twin tenets of revelation and Imago Dei(where God is the source of objective morality).

Anyway, the crucifixion ...

dlofnep

Sorry, was getting a little side-tracked there.

Helix

Monty. wrote: »

Parents can exist even if they grant their children free will.

God can forsee if you will choose to sin or not, but the choice is your own.

if god alread knows which one you will pick, you dont truly have free will because the answer is already known

Helix

Monty. wrote: »

In other words if you succumb to the belief that you are too smart to believe in God. One of Satan's greatest tricks is to use your intellectual vanity against you. God is not an old man in the sky with a beard sitting on a cloud, God is a spirit.

Our tiny human minds are too small to comprehend the physicality of this universe, never mind the billions of other universes that may be out there, never mind an infinite metaphysical spirit such as God.

isnt that an incredibly convenient answer though?

Helix

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That really depends on what you mean by all powerful. If Christianity says that God is all powerful then that statement isn't undone if we also say that he can't make square circles or married bachelors. God is self-consistent. Similarly, if we say that God has granted us some degree of sovereignty over our own lives then our choosing something against his will isn't a sign of his weakness. Rather, our autonomy is ultimately a function of his will.
.

this is the first time ive ever seen a semi decent answer to that question. thanks very much! thats always been my biggest issue with the idea of omniscience and omnipotence

Monty.

Helix wrote: »

if god alread knows which one you will pick, you dont truly have free will because the answer is already known

Not really. If I could see into the future, that you would become a world renowned pianist because of the choices you would make, it does not mean you have no free will.