What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

realitykeeper wrote: »

Obviously the crucifixion happened as a consequence of sin. After all, if there was no sin in the world, how could the crucifixion have happened. So, why did God not intervene to save Christ?

This is an important question, so important in fact that Christ used his dying breath to ask it. Crucially however, I believe the reason Christ asked this question was so that humanity would ponder the answer. Having pondered it myself, it is obvious why Christ had to die on the cross. If God had intervened, it would have seemed like nepotism to humanity. It would have seemed like nepotism to me so in order to prevent that perception, Christ had to suffer as he did.

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity. Did God want to save his son from crucifixion? Of course. But the prize of love and the necessity of the lesson was so important, it had to happen.

That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about and nepotism is corrosive to authority. The king of kings demonstrated this. Humanity (not least politicians) needs to devote more time to the understanding of the Christian message.

Should we seek to understand the Christian message exclusively?
Should we seek to emulate Christ in his Essene approach to Judaism and all convert to the faith of Abraham?
Or should we just choose whichever of the messianic interpretations espoused by every single branch of Christianity and often at odds with one another best suits or specific need at any given time?

To the detriment of all other prophets or religious sects?
If the path to salvation is exclusively Christian only?
How do we choose the correct interpretation of that path? Or are we all predestined regardless of our choices?

Or, should we as a race regardless of creed aim more towards treating people that little bit better each time we interact?
Should we hope that morality and choice are a better path than Dogma and scripture?

Smacl has pretty much answered the question you asked regarding comparing a fetus and stone throwing Palestinians.

There is to my mind, and to mind of the plebiscite a difference of an order of magnitude between an Embryo and an a person.

Is this where you want to lead the discussion?
I'd rather discuss the notion you raised initially than go on off on a tangent.
You seem to equate morality with Catholicism and even more that that you seem to espouse all branches and creeds of Christianity come together in a singular church and faith.
The very origin of what Catholic means.

Your introduction of Communist atheism as an example of what can go wrong when People try to "create" their own morality is a red herring.
Surely the same could be said of every excess of faith?
Particularly with regard to Papal excess.
Or does that not count because of infallibility?

Morality to my mind at least, is a framework of social norms and accepted common practice.
It is a guide to what society as a whole feels is acceptable and what is not. It is a parent teaching their child the difference between right and wrong and hoping that their child will choose right when pressed.

Morality does not need to stem from a Godhead and any moral code that relies on fear of punishment or damnation in the afterlife fails in providing any incentive to actually make the here and now better.
We have grown out of the days of enduring suffering as a penance and hoping for our reward in the hereafter.

I would revert however to my original point, given your hope for a Universal Christian church.
Is this to mean that all those not subscribing to Catholicism in its form espoused by you are to be denied "salvation"?

Jamie Some Badminton wrote: »

Isn't that what the EA has tried doing along with a certain Pentecostal denomination.

Recipe for disaster is an understatement!

Trying to make one Christian church through compromise? Absolutely not! As someone who has been involved with leading Evangelical Alliance for several years, I'm shocked that we have communicated our mission so poorly that anyone would ever have such an impression.

The whole point of an organisation like Evangelical Alliance is to resource different churches and organisations with their various emphases and passions to continue to do what they can do well, and to encourage cooperation where we can do certain things better together.

So, the Salvation Army has it's own distinctive characteristics and strengths. As do Presbyterians, Pentecostals and others. Each group demonstrates different aspects of the Gospel particularly well, much better than if they were to amalgamate into one blended homogeneous ecclesiastical soup.

Peatys wrote: »

Not much of a sacrifice of he knew he was coming back in 3 days

God has a Mars bar. He love this Mars bar dearly. It is his only Mars bar – because he does not want to make any more but he could make an infinite number of Mars bars if he wanted – but he doesn’t. A bunch of people hate this Mars bar. God, who created both the Mars bar and the people is responsible for the behaviour of both, and he loves them both a lot. He decides that the best way forward is to give up the Mars bar to the people to make them happy (and free them from a thing called sin which God also invented and cursed all people with from birth).

As God hands over the holy Mars bar, the people hang it on a cross, putting it through agony and when it’s dead, it goes into a cave and no one can see what’s happening inside. God obviously has magic powers. He could stop all this from happening but then the people would have to live with the aforementioned sin that God invented and presumably, would all burn in hell because of the rules that God also invented. So – about 3 days after the Mars bar dies, some friends go inside the cave and the Mars bar is gone – but it left its wrapper behind. They put in in a place where lots of people can go and have a look at it and to this day it’s still a big draw.

So while it might seem like God has sacrificed something dear to him (Mars bar) to save another thing dear to him (people) – in fact through magic, when the Mars bar disappeared from the cave, it actually got beamed straight to heaven, in perfect nick but also now immortal – like an everlasting gobstopper. So God has pulled an incredible PR stunt here – it looks like he gave up his beloved Mars bar for people but in fact at worst he had to go without it for 3 days and for an infinite being, that’s not too shabby. He gets all the credit with minimal hassle.

It’s a beautiful story that has inspired millennia of tolerance and love.

Nick Park wrote: »

That's where you have to consider free will. If free will is a gift worth giving, then it means God voluntarily choosing not to exercise power to control us. I see no logical reason why an omnipotent omniscient being cannot choose to give free will, or why He cannot choose to voluntarily refrain from acting in a particular way.

Omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do anything, but can also choose not to.

Christians presumably accept that God has made choices and continues to do so.
These choices would be made within the framework of existence created by God.

smacl wrote: »

Man's free will has little to do with it. If you want something to happen in the full knowledge that in won't happen, you're not omnipotent. Similarly if you want something to happen, and don't know whether or not it will happen, you're not omniscient. Words like want/wish/desire etc.. express a preferred outcome for an unknown future event. If you already know the future, these words are meaningless, regardless of how you slice or dice your theological determinism.

I think you're committing a fairly basic error by interpreting 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' in a rather simplistic way, ignoring the fact that in philosophy and theology there is a lot of discussion over how such terms should be defined. (In a way, it's similar to how Creationists sometimes bandy scientific jargon around without understanding it).

As I've already pointed out, omnipotence is perfectly compatible with choosing not to do something that one can do (ie not forcing someone to do something, but giving them free will instead). Omnipotence does not include doing things that are inherently logically impossible (eg creating a square circle, or giving free will while simultaneously exercising complete control over our actions)

Omniscience, by many philosophers' definition, does not necessarily mean knowing the future. Rather it can mean knowing all possible outcomes dependent upon the decisions that free moral agents make. (Think of a chess player who can see all the future permutations depending on his opponent's next move). The reasoning here is that omniscience only includes knowing things that are true. If someone possesses genuine free will, and has not made their choices yet, then the outcome of those choices are not yet 'true'. Therefore, it is argued, it is inherently logically impossible to know in advance what a free moral agent will choose in any given situation.

There are plenty of good philosophy resources online if you want to read up on it a bit more.

However, even if we assume that an omniscient being can know the future, that does not make it unreasonable to speak of that being's will as regards future events. In this scenario, God gives us free will. He would want us to use that free will for good in every situation, but knows that sometimes we won't. Nevertheless, the gift of free will (without which you cannot have love) is a morally good thing, and outweighs the harm that our wrong choices might create.