Something Wicknight posted over yonder...

Soul Winner

This is an attempt to respond to Wicknight's post in this thread. I didn't want to do it over there for fear of derailing that particular thread.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is by no means the biggest problem I have with the Christian god, but it is one at the core of the religion that no Christian has yet been able to give a satisfactory answer to.

How does Jesus' suffering and death (being part of God, and sent by the Father) pay for the injustice of Adam's (and humanities) disobedience?

If we assume for a minute the ancient system of debt that the Hebrew notions are based on then it would seem illogical that Jesus, either being God or at the very least sent by God, could equal out the debt of sin against God.

It would be like you burning down my house and me saying I forgive you but since justice must be served I'm going to beat myself/my son for a few hours.

If I beat myself then nothing is being paid to myself to replace the loss of my house.

If I beat my son then nothing is being paid to myself to replace the loss of my house since my son isn't even offering to take the beating on behalf of you (a silly notion in modern times but I guess one that works in Hewbrew times so if he was that might make sense).


Or to put it in a better context of the Old Tesatment which these rules are based on, it would me sinning against God and then instead of me killing a goat at the alter it would be be like God killing his own goat. How does that appease God, or his sense of justice?

The reason (I think) no Christian has been able to give you a satisfactory answer to this is because your analogy is not representative of the facts in the Bible.

You say the following:

It would be like you burning down my house and me saying I forgive you but since justice must be served I'm going to beat myself/my son for a few hours.

What the analogy should be is this:

It would be like me (Me) saying: Do not burn down my house, for in the day that you burn down my house you (Wicknight) will surely die. Then you burn down my house.

It is at this juncture that your analogy breaks down from what was really going on, because now I have a problem. In order for me to carry out justice I need to administer the penalty of death to you. But I don't really want to because I love you. But if I don't then my integrity cannot be counted by the others in my house. So I have a problem.

How to solve my problem?

I come up with a plan that if agreed to by all the members of my house can come into effect. The plan is this. Justice must be served but without the need for you to die. If you die then justice would be served but then I will never see you again. However, in order to carry out justice someone who doesn't deserve to die could die in your place. That person would need to be someone who lives in my house, my son for instance, and, if willing to do so, he could stand in for you. So I say to my son (who doesn't deserve to die) that if he takes the penalty for your sin onto himself then I will raise him to new life again (presuming I had the power to do so).

My son, (because of the love and trust he has for me) agrees and performs the deed. Once this has happened then your sin has been paid for by the death of my son (who didn't deserve it) and you continue to live even though you don't deserve to. All this because I didn't want you to die but also because I did want to keep my integrity in my house as someone who is faithful to his word.

You burning down my house is defined as doing something which was explicitly outside of my will i.e. a sin. And I had said that for sin comes death. For me to just wink at your sin would show that I'm a loving person but not one who can be trusted in to do what he says. This is what is going on in the case of the councils in eternity. God could forgive Adam without carrying out what He said would be the price of Adam's sin but the denizens of eternity would then have no basis for faith in such a God because He would then be viewed by them as a capricious God and unfaithful to His Word. However sending His Son to pay the price for Adam's sin would result in both justice and mercy being served in the same act.

Have I gone anyway close to clearing this particular issue up for you? I'm not suggesting that this is all true (I believe it is obviously) but if you're going to draw analogies to what is actually written in the Word then I suggest that you do a better job of it, it might result in less confusion about the facts to begin with. Anyway, hope this helps.

Black Swan

Wicknight wrote: »

If we assume for a minute the ancient system of debt that the Hebrew notions are based on then it would seem illogical that Jesus, either being God or at the very least sent by God, could equal out the debt of sin against God.

He paid a Godly price?

Soul Winner

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

He paid a Godly price?

The penalty or price in this case was death.

Black Swan

If Jesus is God, and if God is infinite, He paid an infinite price?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Have I gone anyway close to clearing this particular issue up for you?

No, you just rearranged it slightly by replacing beat with died and overly focusing on my initial proclamation "If someone burns down my house I will beat them", which was a given rather than a missed point. The point remains the same.

It still doesn't explain how me killing or beating my son pays for the debt of my house being burnt down, and thus doesn't explain how justice is served by this act. I just end up with a beaten son, which is a bad thing from my view. If someone else beat my son I would consider that a crime against my son and my family, not a gain for us. So how is me beating my son an improvement on just having my house burnt down?

Not only have I suffered for the crime of my house being destroyed, but now my son has suffered in some bizarre notion of paying me back for the lose of my house. Which seems ridiculous.

The notions you guys work under seem to be.

Firstly anyone can take the place of anyone else's punishment and this still satisfies justice. This to me is silly, the idea that say if you rape my wife you can get your friend to serve your sentence and you go free and this satisfies justice.

While you friend might be happy to do this, it would be completely unsatisfactory to me, since your friend did nothing to me or my wife. But while I find this idea ridiculous there does at least seem to be some reference in the Old Testament to it, with the idea that you can pay your sin by killing an animal, though how this is justice I don't know

Secondly, it doesn't matter if that person playing the punishment is actually someone close to me who I care about. Which means you rape my wife and I wishing to forgive you but still requiring that "justice be served" make my wife do the prison sentence, and you go free.

This seems doubly ridiculous since I and my wife are the ones suffering the crime in the first place, how does further suffering on our part act as justice against the initial suffering. I can't find reference for this type of thing in the Old Testament, the idea that through my continued suffering and sacrifice the debt to me or my family is paid of.

So I would ask the same to you, while you might not agree do you at least understand where I'm coming from?

I don't have to believe in order to understand, so arguments that it is my atheism that is making me not be able to "get it" ring hollow. There are plenty of things in the Bible that make logical sense based on their own rules even if I don't believe they happened.

So if there is an actual logic here by all means can someone explain it to me, because I'm genuinely at a loss as to where the justice is, or where you guys think the justice is, in this story.

If it is simply a case that you guys are working of a completely alien notion of "justice" to me then that may be the explanation, but I would genuinely wonder do you really believe this, do you really believe that for example my wife could pay the debt of someone raping her?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The penalty or price in this case was death.

You agree though that saying

If you burn down my house I will kill you

is not the same as saying

If you burn down my house I will kill someone

One is an act of justice, the other simply an act of anger. No one else but the person who burnt down the house has done anything wrong to you, killing them serves no purpose in terms of justice (as far as I'm concerned, like I said you guys could just have alien notions of justice)

The logic that someone has to pay to me greatly misses the wood for the trees. I'm not simply killing someone just because I'm killing you because you specifically did something terrible to me.

If I kill someone else then you have still done something terrible to me and that debt has not been repaid.

Soul Winner

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If Jesus is God, and if God is infinite, He paid an infinite price?

You got it!!!

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

The reason (I think) no Christian has been able to give you a satisfactory answer to this is because your analogy is not representative of the facts in the Bible.

TBH, the reason why I think no satisfactory answer has been given, is that there are 'holes', for want of a better term, in most of them IMO(or at least things that look like holes).

If we believe in the Adam and Eve account, metephorically or literally, it raises the question of 'Why did God not destroy Satan' before hand. Why did he test humans with the tree? Also, the sacrifice scenario is difficult to understand.

I would love for this thread, or another one maybe?, to have Christians hammer out such questions. I don't expect consensus, nor do I expect a definitive answer. It would be very interesting though.

JimiTime

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If Jesus is God, and if God is infinite, He paid an infinite price?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You got it!!!

What does that mean? I've heard it being said, but I don't comprehend it. If you have the time SW, any chance you could expand and dumb down what this infinite price thing is all about?

Zombrex

It would be helpful if you guys could define what is, in your view, justice.

Most of my issues with the sacrafice of Jesus stem from this. I'm reading all your explanations going "But that isn't justice!"

Do you all believe that someone else can "pay" for crime carried out by someone by offering to do the punishment instead of the person who actually carried out the crime, and this is still justice?

Do you all believe that this person can be someone close to the person who suffered during the crime, so for example I can be stabbed in a violent attack and my daughter can offer to go to prison for 10 years instead of the person who stabbed me, and this is still justice despite my daughter going to prison being nothing but a lose for me?

If you do then I don't get it but at least I understand why you guys do.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

You agree though that saying

If you burn down my house I will kill you

is not the same as saying

If you burn down my house I will kill someone

One is an act of justice, the other simply an act of anger. No one else but the person who burnt down the house has done anything wrong to you, killing them serves no purpose in terms of justice (as far as I'm concerned, like I said you guys could just have alien notions of justice)

The logic that someone has to pay to me greatly misses the wood for the trees. I'm not simply killing someone just because I'm killing you because you specifically did something terrible to me.

If I kill someone else then you have still done something terrible to me and that debt has not been repaid.

But nobody has to pay the price except the sinner. But to save the sinner from the penalty of death and also serve God's justice then death must result somewhere. Why? Because God said for sin comes death. The integrity of His Word is at stake.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

But nobody has to pay the price except the sinner. But to save the sinner from the penalty of death and also serve God's justice then death must result somewhere. Why? Because God said for sin comes death. The integrity of His Word is at stake.

But if he struck down Adam and Eve there and then, that would have been justice right? So why didn't he do that, and start over? I'm a believer remember, but I don't grasp this scenario fully myself.

TravelJunkie

Wicknight.

I was just at a seminar that this was a topic.

I can't relay all the information, but basically, in short.

People are sinners (because of Adam/original sin), and God is perfect, so judgement is necessary.

God is the judge.

The only way we can have right standing with God again, is to be justified.

How can we be justified to such a perfect God?

With a perfect sacrifice.

There is no such thing, of course. So, God, the Judge, had to become the justifier, in order to provide Justification.

The good news - all God wants, is fellowship with us, ie. people.

Christ is the way.

All we have to do is accept this perfect gift. The perfect gift is justification.

The reason God had to send his Son is that there was no other way.

And also, there is a supernatural battle too. Which is won, with Christs resurrection.

Christ died for our sins. Justification.

His resurrecting power. This power can change your life as well, resurect you into a new person. A new state of being with God.

And yes, maybe it doesn't make sense to you that this gift is FREE. (ie. why would someone not ask for payment of the house?)

But we would NEVER be able to pay the price, which is why Christ did, because he loved us.

And why would you want to pay for something that is already DONE and FREE anyway.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But nobody has to pay the price except the sinner.

And Jesus wasn't the sinner, so why did he pay?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But to save the sinner from the penalty of death and also serve God's justice then death must result somewhere. Why? Because God said for sin comes death.

But that is what I mean by missing the wood for the trees. You seem to think that God said if you sin something will die, it might be you, it might be someone else, it can be anyone, but something has to die. He didn't, he said if you sin you will die.

Death is the penalty, it is not simply a random consequence that can be applied to anything.

If I said "Burning down a house results in a beating" that doesn't mean that if a house gets burnt down then because I said this someone, somewhere, has to get beaten. That would not be justice, neither would it be keeping to my word since that obviously was what I meant.

It means you will be beaten, as an act of punishment for burning down the house. It doesn't mean random beatings will have to happen to someone. That is not what is meant by saying beating are a consequence of burning down houses. The beatings have no consequence applied to anyone but the person who burnt down the house.

It makes no sense for God to say if someone sins I have to kill something, doesn't matter what! There is no reason behind that, it is not justice.

SonOfAdam

Jimitime wrote:

But if he struck down Adam and Eve there and then, that would have been justice right? So why didn't he do that, and start over? I'm a believer remember, but I don't grasp this scenario fully myself.

Cause then there'd be a Billy and Geraldine and after them a Chris and Veronica ad nauseum. That's our story - we'll rebel against God at every opportunity.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Wicknight.

I was just at a seminar that this was a topic.

I can't relay all the information, but basically, in short.

People are sinners (because of Adam/original sin), and God is perfect, so judgement is necessary.

God is the judge.

The only way we can have right standing with God again, is to be justified.

How can we be justified to such a perfect God?

With a perfect sacrifice.

There is no such thing, of course. So, God, the Judge, had to become the justifier, in order to provide Justification.

If it is a requirement that a perfect sacrifice be made to God then logically God cannot be that sacrifice.

Ignore the perfect bit for a minute. Say you wreak my car, and you are judged to be at fault. Now naturally you owe me for the car you totalled. But you are broke, so you cannot afford to pay me.

So we have a problem. You owe me more than you can afford to pay (a bit like we owe God more than we can afford to pay).

Now, if I say It is ok, I will pay your debt, would this make sense from the view of justice?

No, because the debt is already owed to me. So any payment I make will be added to loss I already have suffered at your hands.

Thus any action on my part cannot equal the debt.

The same is true for God. God cannot pay our debt to him because the debt is to him in the first place. Any further loss (such as Jesus suffering) will only add to what is already owed to him, it won't nullify what we owe.

Zombrex

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Cause then there'd be a Billy and Geraldine and after them a Chris and Veronica ad nauseum. That's our story - we'll rebel against God at every opportunity.

Don't we only do that because of original sin? Jesus, who wasn't tainted with Adam's curse, didn't sin against God.

TravelJunkie

Wicknight wrote: »

And Jesus wasn't the sinner, so why did he pay?


I didn't elaborate on this in my post.

But this was in much detail as to why.

The only reason Jesus paid is because he was the only one that could.

He is Gods son, and so he becomes one of us, so that he can become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

None of us could have led a perfect life, and even if we did, endured the length of torturous time on the cross.

This is the point of Justification. God has to remain true to himself. He is Judge. He can only accept us this way. There is no other way.

The judge provides a death sentence, and then sends his Son to die for us as the perfect sacrifice, but then resurrects his son and rewards him in heaven. Jesus' name is higher than all other names and all will bow at his feet.

TravelJunkie

Wicknight wrote: »

If it is a requirement that a perfect sacrifice be made to God then logically God cannot be that sacrifice.

Ignore the perfect bit for a minute. Say you wreak my car, and you are judged to be at fault. Now naturally you owe me for the car you totalled. But you are broke, so you cannot afford to pay me.

So we have a problem. You owe me more than you can afford to pay (a bit like we owe God more than we can afford to pay).

Now, if I say It is ok, I will pay your debt, would this make sense from the view of justice?

No, because the debt is already owed to me. So any payment I make will be added to loss I already have suffered at your hands.

Thus any action on my part cannot equal the debt.

The same is true for God. God cannot pay our debt to him because the debt is to him in the first place. Any further loss (such as Jesus suffering) will only add to what is already owed to him, it won't nullify what we owe.

You make an excellent point Wicknight.

Christ dies for us to bring us to God. We can never repay him. As christians, we know this and are so aware of this every day (and we should be!)

Do you think we are debt free? NO WAY!

Once you accept Gods gift, think about it, you accept him. You can't be selfish anymore. Go about your business, mocking and scoffing and acting all pround and high and mighty. all of the sudden you have to be humble.

Oh Lord, what have I done to you? Because our sin was also there on that cross, it was all sin from all man from past, present and future.

So yes, he says we don't have to pay, but in a sense we are indebted to Jesus. So we should think about that debt. And we should love him.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Wicknight wrote: »

And Jesus wasn't the sinner, so why did he pay?


I didn't elaborate on this in my post.

But this was in much detail as to why.

The only reason Jesus paid is because he was the only one that could.

He is Gods son, and so he becomes one of us, so that he can become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

None of us could have led a perfect life, and even if we did, endured the length of torturous time on the cross.

This is the point of Justification. God has to remain true to himself. He is Judge. He can only accept us this way. There is no other way.

The judge provides a death sentence, and then sends his Son to die for us as the perfect sacrifice, but then resurrects his son and rewards him in heaven. Jesus' name is higher than all other names and all will bow at his feet.

In the past when I've have had these discussions it ends up with posters just repeating the sacrafice story to me. That isn't really necessary, I'm fully aware of the stories' details

The issue isn't what is said to have happened. The issue is how exactly is it justice and does it make sense? The Bible can say it was done in the name of justice, but that doesn't mean (to me at least) that this makes sense.

Do you think God sending Jesus to pay our debt to God makes sense given that this sacrifice originated from God not us?

If so how do reconcile that it was God himself who we owed the debt of sin to, thus any further loss on the part of God (such as Jesus' suffering) will only add to what God has suffered, rather than nullify it.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

You make an excellent point Wicknight.

Christ dies for us to bring us to God. We can never repay him. As christians, we know this and are so aware of this every day (and we should be!)

Do you think we are debt free? NO WAY!

Once you accept Gods gift, think about it, you accept him. You can't be selfish anymore. Go about your business, mocking and scoffing and acting all pround and high and mighty. all of the sudden you have to be humble.

Oh Lord, what have I done to you? Because our sin was also there on that cross, it was all sin from all man from past, present and future.

So yes, he says we don't have to pay, but in a sense we are indebted to Jesus. So we should think about that debt. And we should love him.

That doesn't explain the issue though. There is an appeal to this universal sense of justice, that Jesus paid for us in the eyes of God. But I still am not following how that can be considered justice.

TBH Soul Winner has got the closes with his idea that it is simply an issue of God having to stay true to his word that if we sin something dies.

Then it becomes not an issue of justice per say. It simply becomes an issue of that something swapping from us to Jesus because God, to stay true to his word, has to kill something.

But there are a lot of issues with that idea, not least of which God proclaiming that if we sin then something dies seems nonsensical and rather random and not really what the Bible says. What purpose would such a proclamation serve?

smokingman

I had thought that Jesus was part of the holy trinity, effectively being god as well?

So he effectively sent himself then yeah?

Zombrex

smokingman wrote: »

I had thought that Jesus was part of the holy trinity, effectively being god as well?

So he effectively sent himself then yeah?

Depends on how you view the Trinity I guess. I think the Bible describes Jesus being sent by the Father.

Ush1

lol @ the looking for logic. Out of the questions you've asked here, how many have been given a sensible, logical answer? Can you please link to them if there is any?

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

lol @ the looking for logic. Out of the questions you've asked here, how many have been given a sensible, logical answer? Can you please link to them if there is any?

None, that is the point

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

None, that is the point

Why keep asking then?

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

Why keep asking then?

Are you implying there isn't an answer?

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

lol @ the looking for logic according to our limited assumptions that the world is purely material, and that there is nothing other than what is perceivable to the senses. Out of the questions you've asked here, how many have been given a sensible, logical answer? Can you please link to them if there is any?

FYP

There is no logical basis for such assumptions. Indeed, such assumptions create an ivory tower of sorts.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

FYP

There is no logical basis for such assumptions. Indeed, such assumptions create an ivory tower of sorts.

Are you saying there is no logical basis for belief in the sending of Jesus and the sacrifice?

Is not then this is rather irrelevant, don't you think?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

you think God sending Jesus to pay our debt to God makes sense given that this sacrifice originated from God not us?

If so how do reconcile that it was God himself who we owed the debt of sin to, thus any further loss on the part of God (such as Jesus' suffering) will only add to what God has suffered, rather than nullify it.

Yes, I think it makes perfect sense.

The point of the sacrifice is not to compensate God for the loss He has received because of our sin. Justice is very different from compensation.

Sin absolutely sucks. Unfortunately, being sinners ourselves, we consistently underestimate the horrendous nature of sin, therefore we think justice can be something that's done with a wink and a nod and a "Ah let's all kiss and make up."

When someone does something utterly despicable and horrible, then justice demands that there should be consequences. That is the basis for the message of salvation. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who knew a bit about sin and justice), "Salvation may be free, but it can't be cheap."

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

I had thought that Jesus was part of the holy trinity, effectively being god as well?

So he effectively sent himself then yeah?

No, not if you have even the faintest understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you saying there is no logical basis for belief in the sending of Jesus and the sacrifice?

Is not then this is rather irrelevant, don't you think?

I'm claiming that your assumptions, and Ush1's assumptions are about as unsubstantiated as you claim Jesus coming into the world to be our ransom is.

Arguing as to the logistics of Jesus' sacrifice is woefully limited with the assumptions that you apply to this discussion before even posting. The assumptions are that God cannot exist, and that Jesus cannot truly be a ransom for the world because everything is material.

It couldn't be much more relevant!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The point of the sacrifice is not to compensate God for the loss He has received because of our sin. Justice is very different from compensation.

Obviously I don't mean physically pay or give to God. I mean in the sense of restoring balance, the notion of eye for an eye. You do a crime against someone something happens to you to restore balance.

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately, being sinners ourselves, we consistently underestimate the horrendous nature of sin, therefore we think justice can be something that's done with a wink and a nod and a "Ah let's all kiss and make up."

You know that has nothing to do with my question, lets try and keep the preaching out of this if we can.

PDN wrote: »

When someone does something utterly despicable and horrible, then justice demands that there should be consequences.

Yes but doesn't justice also demand that the consequences should apply to the person who did something wrong, rather than someone else. Or does this not matter?

Do consequences of a crime applying to someone who had nothing to do with the crime make sense to you?

Because it doesn't to me. Consequence for consequence sake, applied independently to who did or didn't commit the crime, is not justice.

If you get hit in the face by someone the consequences of that action should apply to the person who punched you. If you randomly hit someone else an hour later that wouldn't be justice. Even if someone said "Well hit me instead of the person who hit you" that still wouldn't be justice, hitting this other person serves no purpose.

Do you actually agree with that, if so we can start to establish a common notion of justice.

If you don't agree with that, if you think the consequences can apply to someone who had nothing to do with the crime and that be still justice can you explain the rational behind that?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Arguing as to the logistics of Jesus' sacrifice is woefully limited with the assumptions that you apply to this discussion before even posting. The assumptions are that God cannot exist, and that Jesus cannot truly be a ransom for the world because everything is material.

Isn't that irrelevant though?

Luke Skywalker paying Han Solo for passage on the Millennium Fawlken was a perfectly logical event (Luke wanted to leave, Han only did stuff for money), even neither of us believe it actually happened and was just a story. No one was sitting in the cinema going "What? That scene made no sense...", and that didn't require them to believe it actually happened.

Are you saying that Jesus' sacrifice is only logic if you believe God exists?

philologos

Not at all. If your assumptions are the cause of the problem, perhaps it is time to challenge the assumptions.

Personally, I believe a lot of our presuppositions are actually worth tackling rather than the argument if the presuppositions are inhibiting the discussion which they clearly are in the case of atheists and the coming of Christ into the world.

It couldn't be more relevant.

As for Jesus' coming into the world, of course it is only logical if God exists. God is one of the key prerequisites. If God doesn't exist, then the whole thing is out of the equation. If the whole world is just material, that's God out. There is no way that God can exist if I put that assumption logically in the way.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. If your assumptions are the cause of the problem, perhaps it is time to challenge the assumptions.

What are my assumptions, and how are they problem?

The only assumption I had initially was that there was a logical basis for this story (it is after all a doctrine that has been examined for 2,000 years) and that I was just missing something.

I agree if I stop assuming there is an answer then the problem of not understanding certainly goes away :P

As I said already Soul Winner got very close with his notion that God had to keep to his word that sin would result in death.

That was very close, and I had a flash of "Of course", but on closer examination I still don't think that answers the question fully because I don't think the Bible is implying that God had to kill something (that a general death would be the consequence of death), rather that death was a punishment or consequence for the entity that sinned, rather than a general consequence for everything (like Jesus)

No one else though is going near Soul Winner's notions, so I also don't know how mainstream Christian they are either.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I believe a lot of our presuppositions are actually worth tackling rather than the argument if the presuppositions are inhibiting the discussion which they clearly are in the case of atheists and the coming of Christ into the world.

Isn't that the point of this discussion?

Marcus.Aurelius

PDN wrote: »

No, not if you have even the faintest understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

If Jesus is to pay for the sin of Adam as a perfect man, he can't be God, as they are not equal.

If you're talking simply about humanity being imperfect, why did God create them like that just to punish them and torture his son/himself.

Sounds a bit sadomasochistic. Am I missing something? Genuinely trying to understand this.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Obviously I don't mean physically pay or give to God. I mean in the sense of restoring balance, the notion of eye for an eye. You do a crime against someone something happens to you to restore balance.

Then we're talking about radically different conceprs of justice.

"An eye for an eye" or "Restoring balance" are not what divine justice is about at all.

You know that has nothing to do with my question, lets try and keep the preaching out of this if we can

You know, I'm starting to find you rather tiresome.

This forum exists for all of us to discuss the various topics that crop up in the threads. It is not a private playground for you to limit all discussion to what you feel answers your questions the way you want them answered.

If you don't want preaching then this is the wrong forum for you.

Yes but doesn't justice also demand that the consequences should apply to the person who did something wrong, rather than someone else. Or does this not matter?

Do consequences of a crime applying to someone who had nothing to do with the crime make sense to you?

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.

A father may pay a fine on behalf of his son. That is still justice.

This is where the biblical concept of federality applies. The Christian is not just a follower of Christ. The Bible teaches that a Christian is in Christ, and a part of the Body of Christ. Christ, in His baptism, identified Himself with sinful man so that, even though He had never sinned, our sins became His sins.

Because it doesn't to me

Of course it doesn't. You are an unbeliever, and the Bible says that you have no spiritual understanding. We might as well try to teach algebra to a cat.

PDN

House wrote: »

If Jesus is to pay for the sin of Adam as a perfect man, he can't be God, as they are not equal.

How do you make that flying leap of logic?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

None, that is the point

You are suggesting there is no point in suffering and that it is unjust foir innocent people to suffer and so God should not allow it.

What is service?
What is motherhood?
It it noble?
Or do you think that a mother who goes without so her child will not is a fool and is not to be admired?

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you implying there isn't an answer?

I doubt it very much there is a logical answer. What has been given so far? Wishy washy rewordings of your original question it looks to me.

Your perogative to keep trying to pin down that eel though.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

FYP

There is no logical basis for such assumptions. Indeed, such assumptions create an ivory tower of sorts.

Nothing to do with assumptions. It's you who is doing that. Ivory tower??

Erm, okay, if there is no issue with the logic please answer the OPs query, showing the logical path to the answer.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't answer the question satisfactorily so I'm just gonna say assumptions alot while making assumptions and you and Ush1.

And I still haven't answered your question!

FYP

philologos

Not at all. You are assuming things that make it impossible for you to make sense of it. Therefore you don't. The problem is basically that you're assuming that all things are material, and as a result God cannot logically exist, and there would be 0 point in Jesus coming

By ivory tower, I mean that by setting up these assumptions you are attempting to withdraw your own point of view from criticism.

I suggest we need to get to the root of the problem rather than discuss systematically through a topic which you have set up your assumptions so that you will never see the logic. It is these assumptions that are the real issue.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. You are assuming things that make it impossible for you to make sense of it. Therefore you don't. The problem is basically that you're assuming that all things are material, and as a result God cannot logically exist, and there would be 0 point in Jesus coming

By ivory tower, I mean that by setting up these assumptions you are attempting to withdraw your own point of view from criticism.

I suggest we need to get to the root of the problem rather than discuss systematically through a topic which you have set up your assumptions so that you will never see the logic. It is these assumptions that are the real issue.

Riiiight, where in his posts does he mention anything to do with material? It has nothing to do with it unless you're going to enlighten me?

So, for the logical answer I have to believe in God first? Then all the logic of the question he posed just falls nicely into place?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Then we're talking about radically different conceprs of justice.

"An eye for an eye" or "Restoring balance" are not what divine justice is about at all.

It is not being made particularly clear what "divine justice" is about, and perhaps if someone could explain this to me there wouldn't be an issue. So far the response have been rather inconsistent and a bit all over the place.

For example one post you say Jesus' sacrifice was nothing to do with compensation and in this post you say you would have no trouble with a father paying his sons fine and still considering that justice, which is everything to do with compensation.

So I hope you appreciate the confusion. It could be, as you say, because I'm a non-believer and "spiritually" unable to understand this concept. If that is the case then I don't see the purpose in attempting to explain it to me?

PDN wrote: »

You know, I'm starting to find you rather tiresome.

This forum exists for all of us to discuss the various topics that crop up in the threads. It is not a private playground for you to limit all discussion to what you feel answers your questions the way you want them answered.

Not this forum but this thread apparently is. Look, my name is in the title :pac:

Seriously though the preachy stuff just gets in the way. You know I'm an atheist, you know I don't believe in the resurrection story, so there is no point preaching to me about how sinful my heart is or how wicked we all are as if that will suddenly make me understand something. It seems rather simply an attempt to guilt people like myself into not actually questioning, as if questioning is in itself bad, in a sort of shouldn't you be grateful for what God did now stop questioning it sort of way.

So since it doesn't answer the question it is rather irrelevant. If you don't have an answer to the question that is fine. If you genuinely believe that because I'm not a Christian I won't understand the answer to the question or because I'm not a Christian you can't articulate the answer to me, that is fine. Don't bother posting. If you engage in attempting to answer the question there is no point saying a few posts later when I'm saying that didn't really answer the question that it is impossible for me to understand the answer.

If you don't want preaching then this is the wrong forum for you.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.

A father may pay a fine on behalf of his son. That is still justice.

Ok, that is an example of a system where we allow transfer of debt, so there may be something there.

So your son commits a crime. As punishment he must compensate for what he has done. For small(er) crimes instead of incarceration the state may simply accept a fine.

So your son can't pay it but the father steps in and pays if for him. Now to my mind (and feel free to disagree) this means that the State is compensated but the son now must compensate the father. So he may do chores around the house, or he may be grounded.

Or the father may pay the fine and simply forgive the son, though I think we would both agree that this is not particularly just since the son gets away scot free.

Also I imagine you would agree that this doesn't work for more serious crimes. For example I'm aware of no justice system that would accept the father serving a prison sentence on behalf of his son. This would be because it serves no purpose towards justice. In the fine situation ideally the State still wants the son to compensate the State, but the State can't really stop the father giving the son the money to pay his fine. But they can refuse to accept the father offering himself to serve the son's time.

So are you saying you disagree with this? That in "divine justice" it would make sense that the father could pay for the son's crime through prison time?

PDN wrote: »

This is where the biblical concept of federality applies. The Christian is not just a follower of Christ. The Bible teaches that a Christian is in Christ, and a part of the Body of Christ. Christ, in His baptism, identified Himself with sinful man so that, even though He had never sinned, our sins became His sins.

I'm aware of that. The issue is not the details of the story, the issue is whether what God did makes logical sense.

If I explained a story of a man going to prison for the crime his son committed that story wouldn't get any more logical from the point of view of justice if it was explained over and over that the man was going to prison for the crime his son committed

PDN wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. You are an unbeliever, and the Bible says that you have no spiritual understanding. We might as well try to teach algebra to a cat.

If you genuinely believe that this concept cannot be understood by someone who is not already a believer of Christianity (and thus this concept, which is a bit circular) then you are probably being rather silly attempting to explain it to me.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, the reason why I think no satisfactory answer has been given, is that there are 'holes', for want of a better term, in most of them IMO(or at least things that look like holes).

If we believe in the Adam and Eve account, metephorically or literally, it raises the question of 'Why did God not destroy Satan' before hand. Why did he test humans with the tree? Also, the sacrifice scenario is difficult to understand.

I would love for this thread, or another one maybe?, to have Christians hammer out such questions. I don't expect consensus, nor do I expect a definitive answer. It would be very interesting though.

I believe that God created Adam and Eve in order to bring about Satan's demise. He gave them dominion over every thing that moves upon the earth, and that included Satan, who by that time had been cast out of the heavenlies and restricted to the earth. When they believed his lie over God's Word about the tree they defaulted their dominion to him. That's how he has access back to the heavenlies in Job's day and that's why he is called the God of this world in the New Testament, and the Prince of the power of the air. When Michael fought over the body of Moses with Satan it says that Michael dared not curse Satan to his face, rather he just said; "They Lord rebuke thee." Why wouldn't Michael curse him to his face? Because he was a functioning member of the councils and as such had a certain position to hold down, but not for too much longer. Anyway this is speculation but it has a basis in scripture, plus it makes sense to me.

The reason God tested humans with the tree was to establish the fact that even though He gave them everything, the tree maintained His right to say no to that one thing. That tree became the most attractive tree in the garden. And Satan caught Eve looking at it and proceeded to beguile her with false ideas about why God did not want them to eat off it. The lesson God wanted them to learn was this: The reason you don't eat of the tree is because I said you don't eat off that tree. A simple but very hard lesson for mankind to learn. You do it because He says you do it or you don't do it because He says you don't do it. There is no other criteria for our behavior higher than that. Had they had long enough to learn that lesson then they might not have ate off the tree, trusted God's Word and thus destroyed the works of Satan very early on.

But they didn't and (if the story be true which I believe it is even though I can't prove it scientifically) we are in the mess we are in because of that. Ever since God has been acting in a reconstructive role which is designed to save the elect and to destroy the works of Satan and ultimately to destroy Satan himself along with all his minions including those of the race of mankind who are enslaved by his wiles and refusing the hand of grace that God has mercifully gone out of His way to bend down and give.

That's my understanding of the whole thing in a nutshell.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You are suggesting there is no point in suffering and that it is unjust foir innocent people to suffer and so God should not allow it.

No, I'm querying the logic of the justice in having someone else unconnected suffer for crimes committed against you.

So for example,

Would it be just for the State to accept a mother going to jail for 15 years because her son raped someone, while the son is freed?

To me the answer is a resounding no, that does nothing to serve justice since the son is freed and the mother hasn't done anything. The mother suffering in jail would mean little to the rape victim, they won't find compensation from this act or resolution.

That is only the first bit of it, as I already explained of course.

The second bit is more specific, since it was God who was wronged in the first place.

So adapting the example above,

Would it be just for a mother to go to jail for 15 years because her son raped her, while the son was freed?

Say a son rapes his mother. His mother feels that someone must pay for this crime against her, but she doesn't want to see her son in jail. So she decides that she will pay for this crime against her, and locks herself in jail for 15 years. Does that make logical sense from the point of view of justice?

Now depending on your Christian interpration it may be argued that it was God the Father who was wronged by sin, Jesus is not the Father and was not sent under direction of the Father he offered himself to his Father for us.

But that to me still doesn't make much sense if you again use the analogy of the raped mother.

So a son rapes his mother. His mother feels that to serve justice someone must pay for this crime against her. Her daughter steps up and says she will pay for what the son has done to her mother. The mother, not wanting the son to go to jail agrees and locks the daughter up in the prison for 15 years.

This is still nonsense from the point of view of justice. The daughter being in jail for 15 years does nothing from the view of justice. It is pointless, the mother is basically forgiving the son without punishing him and anything she does to the daughter is irrelevant to his.

This is more on the level of what we are talking about with the sacrifice of Jesus since Jesus was sent by the Father and it was the Father who the crime of our sin was committed against.

Punishing Jesus for our sins (if you think of God as the mother, Jesus as the daughter and us as the son rapist) would seem to serve as much purpose as locking the daughter up in the prison instead of the son.

What purpose in the context of justice does that action serve?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe that God created Adam and Eve in order to bring about Satan's demise. He gave them dominion over every thing that moves upon the earth, and that included Satan, who by that time had been cast out of the heavenlies and restricted to the earth. When they believed his lie over God's Word about the tree they defaulted their dominion to him. That's how he has access back to the heavenlies in Job's day and that's why he is called the God of this world in the New Testament, and the Prince of the power of the air. When Michael fought over the body of Moses with Satan it says that Michael dared not curse Satan to his face, rather he just said; "They Lord rebuke thee." Why wouldn't Michael curse him to his face? Because he was a functioning member of the councils and as such had a certain position to hold down, but not for too much longer. Anyway this is speculation but it has a basis in scripture, plus it makes sense to me.

The reason God tested humans with the tree was to establish the fact that even though He gave them everything, the tree maintained His right to say no to that one thing. That tree became the most attractive tree in the garden. And Satan caught Eve looking at it and proceeded to beguile her with false ideas about why God did not want them to eat off it. The lesson God wanted them to learn was this: The reason you don't eat of the tree is because I said you don't eat off that tree. A simple but very hard lesson for mankind to learn. You do it because He says you do it or you don't do it because He says you don't do it. There is no other criteria for our behavior higher than that. Had they had long enough to learn that lesson then they might not have ate off the tree, trusted God's Word and thus destroyed the works of Satan very early on.

But they didn't and (if the story be true which I believe it is even though I can't prove it scientifically) we are in the mess we are in because of that. Ever since God has been acting in a reconstructive role which is designed to save the elect and to destroy the works of Satan and ultimately to destroy Satan himself along with all his minions including those of the race of mankind who are enslaved by his wiles and refusing the hand of grace that God has mercifully gone out of His way to bend down and give.

That's my understanding of the whole thing in a nutshell.

Some what off topic, but where does God's omniscient fit into that? He knew Adam and Eve wouldn't listen to him from the start, correct?

Scratch that, that question is way too off topic and I seem to be having a hard enough time discussing the answers to the first question

Soul Winner

In order to question whether God's justice is valid or not we must try and define what we think justice is in the first place. So before we proceed to this sticky point I think we should first define our terms. So what is justice in your opinion?

Now I would say that justice is when a person who is guilty of a crime gets the sentence that that crime warrants. That, to me, is justice and I assume that it is the same for everyone else. And with that I will proceed.

So let us assume that your son is accused of a crime and is subsequently tried and found guilty and sentenced accordingly, say 20 years in prison. Now you appeal to the judge for clemency because you know your son will not survive even 2 years in prison let alone 20. But the judge says that the law is the law and he must pay the price for his crime. But you insist and even offer to do the time yourself so that your son might go free. Lets assume that the judge conceded to your appeal and lets your son go free and sends you down instead. Would you regard that as justice? Yes or no will suffice. If yes then it is the same concept in the Bible. If no, then should the situation arise in real life would you not do the time for your son, knowing that just 2 years in prison would actually kill him?

Let us assume that you would, but you still don't agree that it amounts to justice being served. But after three years in prison you start reading books about law and you come across an article which actually outlines the legality of a father doing time in their offspring's stead if they (the father) believe that the sentence would eventually end up killing their offspring. What that would mean is that even though you disagree with the law book about justice, the law of the land states that it is legal and therefore justice would be served should that situation arise.

It is the same with what God says justice is and what we think justice should be. You might disagree or simply not understand God's justice but that does not mean that it isn't justice. Why should justice have to agree with what you think it should be? And sure if God as a judge does not exist then there is no ultimate justice anyway, if you disagree with that then I'd like you to tell us why.

philologos

Ush1: I've read a lot of his stuff before. The point is, it isn't the argument that's problematic, it's the way that he's set up his assumptions or presuppositions a priori.