[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Okashira)
Then you can also admit that you are evil? Morality to us is always changing. Yet if there is a set definition of good, then we in ourselves are totally evil. Do you agree?

You're shifting the topic onto something quite unrelated. Again, I am talking about the doctrine of vicarious redemption, and self responsibility - not whether morality is absolute or subjective, or whether humans are naturally evil.

When I say the world doesn't understand, I'm not talking from we can't reasonably understand, I mean we don't truly acknowledge who we are. We work on a relative moral standard, and we say we are good according to what we perceive as good. Good can mean something here in the US, while it could mean something else in Great Britain. In the US, our law may justify you, while in another country it may condemn you. Working from this mindset, you can't understand what sin is because good has a set definition that doesn't change.

Again, I'm not talking about what moral standard we use, I'm talking about assuming responsibility for an individual's actions. If I choose to do a certain deed, then I am responsible for that deed, and its consequences. The doctrine of vicarious redemption removes both these from an individual. Regardless of whether you believe morality to be absolute or subjective, why do you think anyone has the right to remove responsibility from someone?

Let me ask a question then. I mentioned before a possible reason for why Hitchens found this doctrine immoral. (Because it would mean we could freely do what we want, knowing the consequences would be handled by Jesus) My question is, why is it considered immoral? What is the bad that is implied when Jesus takes on our guilt?

It's immoral because it removes personal responsibility from the individual - the very fact that if we do something, we are responsible for choosing those actions, and its consequences. It's immoral because it says we can shift the very essence of blame onto a scapegoat - no, not paying off a debt, or taking a punishment for someone, but actually taking the blame and responsibility away from an individual. Regardless of the absurd ethical implications of the doctrine, this in itself is immoral.

[Okashira]

(Original post by S-man10)
Possibly, but not neccessarily. But if what you say is that Jesus is there to accept responsibility for all your actions whilst you have no hand in them, then yes you would be more insane than the average. Confession, guilt etc is different for responsibility. Righteous or not, responsibility is responsibility.

If you think I'm saying for instance, I tap somebody on the shoulder and they ask me what I want, and I tell them "Oh, that was Jesus tapping you on the shoulder", that is not what I'm saying.

I'm talking about our nature, being put to death in Jesus. That He receives our nature, which was judged on the cross, and we receive His nature. You see, we are born into corruption. It's because of this corruption, we do sin.

(Original post by Hypocrism)
A rumour in the playground is misrepresented and twisted after a WEEK, while the people telling the story are still alive. Do you think that 20 years, in the same kind of society (ironically, children today are on average more literate than people in that time) dynamic, affected by the desire of those making up the stories to attract followers, in a far larger group of people, the details are accurate?

There is no way at all that it could be true after 20 years.

This would be a great argument if all the apostles did was talk about Jesus. Yet they themselves were said to work miracles. Notice how the authors of the NT doesn't just expect people to take their word for it, but the miracles would have been the proof in what they were saying. The miracles actually being God confirming their word.

So if this is the case, that argument falls.

(Original post by aljolson)
You have just contradicted yourself, 50+ years could be 61 years, 20+ years could be 61 years. Not only do we not know the actual dates of the NT, we dont know the authors, maybe they were illiterate and gave accounts verbally, you dont know that, your evidence for Jesus is very weak. Like I said there is no contemporary evidence for any Christ. At least admit this, I can accept your faith in the Bible, but not your logic for your "evidence" of it's truth.

How did I contradict myself? The time period you give is saying 50 years after the fact is the earliest one of these documents were written. I'm saying 20 years is the earliest. Also, what do you mean by contemporary evidence?

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
You're shifting the topic onto something quite unrelated. Again, I am talking about the doctrine of vicarious redemption, and self responsibility - not whether morality is absolute or subjective, or whether humans are naturally evil.

They are related in a way, because you are saying we should get what we deserve. Well, everyone deserves death and seperation from God because there is nothing we can do to change ourselves. All of this talk about redemption, only means something if there is a reason for redemption. Responsibility when it comes to our actions, only mean something if our actions are good or bad. So definition of good and bad are key to understanding this doctrine.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Again, I'm not talking about what moral standard we use, I'm talking about assuming responsibility for an individual's actions. If I choose to do a certain deed, then I am responsible for that deed, and its consequences. The doctrine of vicarious redemption removes both these from an individual. Regardless of whether you believe morality to be absolute or subjective, why do you think anyone has the right to remove responsibility from someone?

The consequence themselves are determined based on the morality of our deeds. We need to have a definition of morality, before we can determine anything about the actions and it's consequences.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
It's immoral because it removes personal responsibility from the individual - the very fact that if we do something, we are responsible for choosing those actions, and its consequences. It's immoral because it says we can shift the very essence of blame onto a scapegoat - no, not paying off a debt, or taking a punishment for someone, but actually taking the blame and responsibility away from an individual. Regardless of the absurd ethical implications of the doctrine, this in itself is immoral.

I will say this, Jesus didn't die for His sins, He didn't have any. He died for our sins, and took our place. So, because they have been judged, there is nothing left to judge. I know I've written a lot in this topic, but I don't believe I said anywhere that our sins became Jesus sins. Only that our sins was judged on Jesus, that He took our sins onto Himself (literally), and was judged by them on the cross.

[R.P.Everything.]

I still don't think you quite get my point. No one except the individual should be judged for or on the sins of the individual. I'm not talking about the relevance of morality or evil, I am talking about the idea of vicarious redemption, which is an unrelated issue. I feel every point that needs to be made by me, has been made, so I'm probably not going to continue this discussion. I feel that my positions are clear and clarified enough, so I leave it to the users of TSR to decide whether they agree or not.

Also, having been a devout Christian for many years, I'm pretty sure this isn't common theological doctrine:

Well, everyone deserves death and seperation from God because there is nothing we can do to change ourselves

Any quote to back this up?

[Okashira]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I still don't think you quite get my point. No one except the individual should be judged for or on the sins of the individual. I'm not talking about the relevance of morality or evil, I am talking about the idea of vicarious redemption, which is an unrelated issue. I feel every point that needs to be made by me, has been made, so I'm probably not going to continue this discussion. I feel that my positions are clear and clarified enough, so I leave it to the users of TSR to decide whether they agree or not.

Also, having been a devout Christian for many years, I'm pretty sure this isn't common theological doctrine:

Any quote to back this up?

Quotes from any particular source?

Also, I still don't understand why vicarious redemption as you put it, is immoral. What are the implications other than, someone else is taking responsibility?

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Okashira)
Quotes from any particular source?

Also, I still don't understand why vicarious redemption as you put it, is immoral. What are the implications other than, someone else is taking responsibility?

Preferably the Bible. I don't remember that interpretation of humanity and sin from sunday school, bible camp or any of my more recent reading of theological and philosophical literature.

And the implications of V.R? The big one is removing responsibility from the individual.

[Okashira]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Preferably the Bible. I don't remember that interpretation of humanity and sin from sunday school, bible camp or any of my more recent reading of theological and philosophical literature.

And the implications of V.R? The big one is removing responsibility from the individual.

Well, we know that from birth, the Bible states we are born into corruption. God originally made man flawless, but then we disobeyed Him, and fell below that mark. In the beginning, our actions and morality was much like God, as we were created in His image.

So now, this is state of man. We are far below God's standard of good. Yet in order to deserve seperation of God, we must knowingly commit crime against Him. (That we freely choose to disobey, apart from our already corrupted nature) One of the ways we do that, is being hypocritical of others. Condemning them for doing the exact same things we do. If we ever said to someone to "Go to Hell" because they hurt our feelings in some way, the moment we hurt someone else feelings, we will face the same condemnation. Once you live long enough, we all reach that point in our lives, and thus, everyone deserves seperation from God. (Children and mentally ill peoples are excluded for now. Yet at some point they will have to either receive God's love or not)


Also, with vicarious redeemption, I believe it happens on a smaller scale all the time. Say someone killed a person in blind rage, and immediately regrets it. However, when the cops come to investigate, the muderer's brother steps up and confesses to the crime. Without there being any direct evidence to the person who committed the crime, the cops take the brother who confessed. The brother effectively took on the crime, even though the murderer deserved it's punishment. As a result, the murderer devotes the rest of his life, living for his/her brother. They go on to change many people's lives, even helping the victim's family to exponential degrees to the point the murderer becomes like a brother/son/daughter to the family.

Now, what if the murderer went to prison, perhaps for life. Who lives would he/she effected? How would the victim's family benefited? By the brother taking the fall for the murderer, the murderer was able to change the whole world. That is vicarious redeemption on a small scale.

[R.P.Everything.]

To be specific, I am looking for quotes justifying these three statements:

everyone deserves death

and seperation from God

there is nothing we can do to change ourselves

Not related to vicarious redemption; I simply don't think what you've said even falls in line with standard Christian doctrine.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Okashira)
Many ask why did Jesus have to go to the cross, in order for our sins to be forgiven? Why didn't God just forgive our sins without sending Jesus? The answer is God cannot overlook crime. No judge on this earth would hold his job very long, if he simply dismissed every criminal case that falls on his desk. (Unless that court is corrupt) Crime must be punished.



Now, God is the most powerful being in the universe. He has power that goes beyond our understanding. He did create the cosmos after all. (and that was just a hint of His power) He literally took our sin, and placed it on His Son at the cross. That Jesus literally became our sin, as though He actually did our crime. God then punished the crime (as any good judge will do with crime) on Jesus. So when we receive Jesus into our hearts, what literally happens is our crimes are transferred onto Jesus being, and His righteousness is transferred onto our being. The crime is punished on Jesus, and we receive all His blessings and innonence.




Now God can righteously look at us, and say we are perfect. Because we are perfect in His Son. Everytime He sees us, He sees His beloved Son. (and so, we are His beloved children)

jesus died on the cross for my sins?

so, hitler wont be punished and I can murder people, because he's died for my sins, great!

[LeeC]

(Original post by Okashira)
Many ask why did Jesus have to go to the cross, in order for our sins to be forgiven? Why didn't God just forgive our sins without sending Jesus? The answer is God cannot overlook crime. No judge on this earth would hold his job very long, if he simply dismissed every criminal case that falls on his desk. (Unless that court is corrupt) Crime must be punished.

Now, God is the most powerful being in the universe. He has power that goes beyond our understanding. He did create the cosmos after all. (and that was just a hint of His power) He literally took our sin, and placed it on His Son at the cross. That Jesus literally became our sin, as though He actually did our crime. God then punished the crime (as any good judge will do with crime) on Jesus. So when we receive Jesus into our hearts, what literally happens is our crimes are transferred onto Jesus being, and His righteousness is transferred onto our being. The crime is punished on Jesus, and we receive all His blessings and innonence.

Now God can righteously look at us, and say we are perfect. Because we are perfect in His Son. Everytime He sees us, He sees His beloved Son. (and so, we are His beloved children)

You did not answer the question you said you would, shown in bold. You say that God transfers our sin to Jesus, but you fail to say why he had to do this, which is what you set out to do.

It's also funny how you say we cannot possibly understand his power, then you seem to give a lot of statements about he can and can't do (e.g God cannot overlook crime).

[Okashira]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
To be specific, I am looking for quotes justifying these three statements:





Not related to vicarious redemption; I simply don't think what you've said even falls in line with standard Christian doctrine.

Look up Ezekiel ch. 18 verse 20...

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Galatians ch. 5: 19-21....

"Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

I'm sure you can find a little bit of that in everyone you know, as well as I can. These are the works of our nature. Those who see these things as okay, even one of them, deserves seperation from God. (At some point, we all tried to justify a fit of rage)

We do all those things because of our nature. We must put on a new nature, or else we willingly settle for what we deserve. God wants to save us.

[Okashira]

(Original post by LeeC)
You did not answer the question you said you would, shown in bold. You say that God transfers our sin to Jesus, but you fail to say why he had to do this, which is what you set out to do.

It's also funny how you say we cannot possibly understand his power, then you seem to give a lot of statements about he can and can't do (e.g God cannot overlook crime).

I have answered in that God judged our sins on Jesus. It is right that sin must be judged, and God judged them on His Son. To do anything else, is to not judge sin. Only looking the other way, which is evil to do. (As I state, no judge would hold his job long if he swept every crime under the rug)

This is where I mention God's power. That He could literally take our sin, and place it on Jesus to be judged. If God used His power to make sin vanish into thin air, that is like sweeping it under the rug, and God would be evil to do so. So sin must be judged, and God had the power to judge them on Jesus.

[LeeC]

(Original post by Okashira)
I have answered in that God judged our sins on Jesus. It is right that sin must be judged, and God judged them on His Son. Only looking the other way, which is evil to do. (As I state, no judge would hold his job long if he swept every crime under the rug)

No, you haven't said WHY he had to do this, you're just saying he has to do this which is not answering the question. Why doesn't he just judge the person who sinned? Why does Jesus need to be involved?

And no judge would hold his job if he went around punishing random people for other's crimes! must be a troll..

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Okashira)
Look up Ezekiel ch. 18 verse 20...

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Interesting, as that quote also contradicts your statements on vicarious redemption. It seems to suggest that we should not bear the guilt of others? Supports your interpretation with one side of the hand, sweeps your argument with the other.

"The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son."

The other quote seems to put your views in line with the Bible, so I won't comment on that further. Regardless, I still don't think it stands up for the idea of vicarious redemption.

[Okashira]

(Original post by LeeC)
No, you haven't said WHY he had to do this, you're just saying he has to do this which is not answering the question. Why doesn't he just judge the person who sinned? Why does Jesus need to be involved?

And no judge would hold his job if he went around punishing random people for other's crimes! must be a troll..

If God judged us, that means an eternity of seperation from Him. Of course, you know that, yet you call me a troll? If God judged us, there would be no point in God doing anything. (God would have judged Adam and Eve immediately, and that would have been it)

Also, no judge would put crimes on random people because they don't have the power to literally put a crime on a person. Yet if they had that power, and an innocent person was willing, it would be legal to judge that person for the criminal. (Because the innocent person literally now have the crime on their hands.) The other half is the criminal receiving the innocence of the person, literally. This means the criminal will not only be innocent, but he will behave with that innocence as well. (Meaning he will not go out and commit crime, because he is now operating under an innocent heart.)

[Okashira]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Interesting, as that quote also contradicts your statements on vicarious redemption. It seems to suggest that we should not bear the guilt of others? Supports your interpretation with one side of the hand, sweeps your argument with the other.

"The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son."

The other quote seems to put your views in line with the Bible, so I won't comment on that further. Regardless, I still don't think it stands up for the idea of vicarious redemption.

The thing is, Jesus is special. He didn't descend directly from Adam, but directly from God. The Bible calls Him the second Adam. I think you would find this as knit picking, but it's still true that we don't bear each other's guilt, all of us who was born directly from Adam. (Which is what that verse is referring to, it has to be by the way.)

[LeeC]

(Original post by Okashira)
If God judged us, that means an eternity of seperation from Him. Of course, you know that, yet you call me a troll? If God judged us, there would be no point in God doing anything. (God would have judged Adam and Eve immediately, and that would have been it)

Also, no judge would put crimes on random people because they don't have the power to literally put a crime on a person. Yet if they had that power, and an innocent person was willing, it would be legal to judge that person for the criminal. (Because the innocent person literally now have the crime on their hands.) The other half is the criminal receiving the innocence of the person, literally. This means the criminal will not only be innocent, but he will behave with that innocence as well. (Meaning he will not go out and commit crime, because he is now operating under an innocent heart.)

Parts in bold: Again, you are just saying your own ideas without giving any indication about why they would be true, so I'm not listening to you any more. Judging us does not really mean an eternity of separation from him, he could punish us for a while (in whatever way that would be), then forgive us (much like the current system where people go to jail for their sentence and are then released).

Part in italic: But what is wrong with directly punishing the person? Why does the sin need to be transferred to the innocent person?

Underlined: No, I do not know that, because it doesn't follow from anything, it's just your opinion. You seem to think that things are true just because you believe them to be so, and that you don't need to explain anything.

[Okashira]

(Original post by LeeC)
Parts in bold: Again, you are just saying your own ideas without giving any indication about why they would be true, so I'm not listening to you any more. Judging us does not really mean an eternity of separation from him, he could punish us for a while (in whatever way that would be), then forgive us (much like the current system where people go to jail for their sentence and are then released).

Part in italic: But what is wrong with directly punishing the person? Why does the sin need to be transferred to the innocent person?

Underlined: No, I do not know that, because it doesn't follow from anything, it's just your opinion. You seem to think that things are true just because you believe them to be so, and that you don't need to explain anything.

Even in our system, there are crimes that will put you in prison for the rest of your life. Now, lets say we never died. I imagine we would have sentences where criminals will face eternity in prison. Why? Because they want to commit crime. Why put them back in society, when they are going to commit crime again?

Now, we have committed an untold number of sins against God. Even if we hurt each other, or ourselves, we sin against God because He created us. (Hurting each other is abusing what He created) However, ultimately, there are those who of their free will, reject God and all He stands for. So they receive an ultimate sentence of eternity.

With all that said, I've shown why God must punish sin. Sin is pretty much crime, and crime must be judged. Some of us are regretful of our sin, and God provided a way for their sin to be judged, and they can go free. God wants everyone to receive this gift, but few find it.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Okashira)
This would be a great argument if all the apostles did was talk about Jesus. Yet they themselves were said to work miracles. Notice how the authors of the NT doesn't just expect people to take their word for it, but the miracles would have been the proof in what they were saying. The miracles actually being God confirming their word.

So if this is the case, that argument falls.

This attempted refutation fails to the very fact that a source is needed for apostle miracles - and these sources must be viewed with the same scrutiny as the sources they wish to "prove". Therefore, the apostles' miracles are not real, either.

[aljolson]

(Original post by Okashira)



How did I contradict myself? The time period you give is saying 50 years after the fact is the earliest one of these documents were written. I'm saying 20 years is the earliest. Also, what do you mean by contemporary evidence?

Contemporary from the time of Jesus's lifetime. Of course you contradict yourself, you are giving 20+, the absolute minimum that has been postulated, and that by a christian scientist, whereas most scholars determine 50 to 100 years, some even as high as 300, now I dont believe it was 300 years so I go with the majority views. You on the other hand are trying to imply a limit of 20 years, and that the authors of the NT knew Jesus personally. This is twisting the facts to suit your argument in the existence of Jesus, where there is absolutely NO evidence for him, not only that there is no evidence for the authorship of any biblical text, that is contemporary with the time of the supposed events.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
This attempted refutation fails to the very fact that a source is needed for apostle miracles - and these sources must be viewed with the same scrutiny as the sources they wish to "prove". Therefore, the apostles' miracles are not real, either.

I don't think, no matter how many sources they would be that confirms these miracles, you would accept as true. Technically, the world back then believed in a lot of different things. There's stories of Zeus laughing through a statue. So even if there were accounts speaking on the miracles of the Church, would that really make them more believable on your end?

The Talmud, even though it was composed years after the fact ranging from 70-500 AD (However, the Talmud itself is a composition by Jewish Rabbis), states that Jesus practiced sorcery. This confirms that Jesus actually did do something extra ordinary.

(Original post by aljolson)
Contemporary from the time of Jesus's lifetime. Of course you contradict yourself, you are giving 20+, the absolute minimum that has been postulated, and that by a christian scientist, whereas most scholars determine 50 to 100 years, some even as high as 300, now I dont believe it was 300 years so I go with the majority views. You on the other hand are trying to imply a limit of 20 years, and that the authors of the NT knew Jesus personally. This is twisting the facts to suit your argument in the existence of Jesus, where there is absolutely NO evidence for him, not only that there is no evidence for the authorship of any biblical text, that is contemporary with the time of the supposed events.

If most scholars believe that, they are clearly off their rocker. There's hard evidence pointing toward 20+ years. I've mentioned how the Book of Acts doesn't include the Great Persecution of Rome, the destruction of the temple, and it doesn't even include Paul's death. The Book of Acts was written after the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark. So here is hard evidence that those three accounts were written before 62-63 AD. (That is right around 30 years after Jesus is said to rose again. It's not like all of those accounts were written at the 30 mark, so I say 20+ years after Jesus ascension, if not earlier)