God is not more merciful than most humans.

[DanieltheDragon]

In order for humans to forgive we go through an emotional state and move past the slight.

In order for God to forgive he has to have a ritualistic blood sacrifice involving torture of a pure being to forgive even the slightest of offenses.


How can God be all powerful if he is restricted in his ability to forgive?

How can God be all merciful if there is a sacrifice restriction on his mercy?

Why does God have a lower capacity of forgiveness than humans?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by ttruscott]

When a person commits a capital crime and a righteous and properly appointed Judge condemns him to a just sentence of death, then he owes his life to the judge or too his victims or to justice but a death is required

Which has nothing to do with forgiveness, also the death penalty has been banned in most states and the developed world. So no a "death" is not required. We are also not talking about just death either but even the smallest of slights requires a blood sacrifice.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

Unfortunately, a careful presentation and critique of the various theories of the atonement take place only in the colleges and divinity schools, and then this material only trickles down to the laity.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

P.S. Liberal theologians, especially those of us in the process camp, are extremely critical of teh penal-substitutionary theory.

[Zzyzx]

.

Unfortunately, a careful presentation and critique of the various theories of the atonement take place only in the colleges and divinity schools, and then this material only trickles down to the laity.

I agree.

However, the 'trickle down' doesn't seem to work very well. Many preachers (including personal friends and some from www.clergyproject.org) say plainly "Of course we don't talk about such things in our churches".

Perhaps they realize that appeal to the masses would be reduced by acknowledgement of uncertainty or disagreement at the highest levels of theological scholarship. Even mention that authorship of Gospels is questionable is often regarded as verboten because it may cast doubt upon the reliability (or inerrancy or whatever) of the Bible.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

Yes, unfortunately, many clergy do just that. I remember talking with a biblical scholar, who is also an ordained clergyperson. He was giving a paper at the Chicago SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) annual meeting, on D1 and D2, two additional Deuteronomist sources for the Pentateuch some feel now is the case, expanding the number out from the original four (JEDP). He told me that he would never tell his congregation anything about this. He was afraid he'd lose his job if he said Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. I also heard that from a local minister, one who is fluent in Hebrew and holds with the Documentary Hypothesis. I see their point, but, in a way, I feel like giving them a kick in the pants. it is, after all, their job to educate the congregation, not walk on eggshells. Plus, many churches are very flexible on doctrine. That definitely is the case with the PCUSA, of which I am a member. For example, for years, it has been illegal to ask ministerial candidates whether or not they believe in evolution or teh Virgin Birth. That is left to the minister to decide for himself. I grew up Presbyterian and what I liked about it was that it was the church where you could agree to disagree. Nevertheless, some ministers are pressured to dumb down the intellectual side of faith. In my home church, we had a minister who had a Ph.D. in Christian ethics, plus a library of about 20,000 books. His sermons, I thought anyway, were great, with loads of references to church history, Luther, Calvin, you name it. Alas, many members, though not all, and mind you, this was a congregation of largely highly educated Westinghouse engineers and people, congregation took a dim view. They would childe him, asking if he was going to give a test next week or if they were supposed to take notes during sermons. He got bored, left, and took up a teaching position in a seminary. In came the new minister, better liked, who once told me that he hadn't rad a book in theology in forty years. He but smiled when I told him his sermons sure sounded that way. So I know it is a battle for ministers. At present, I'm a member of a local Unitarian church, largely because I heard, form some of my students, that it had excellent intellectual discussion groups. Oops! Big mistake. The church was largely lay run for many years, with an ordained minister stopping by only very few months. many liked that, allowed the church to collapse into a pleasant Sunday-morning social club. Right now, we just got a fulltime minister whom I am working with to help upgrade the educational level of the church. It is very tough going. So many of the congregation just don't want to think any theological thoughts about anything, period. But we are trying.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by Wootah]



[center]No requirement for torture, but allowed to happen.
Part One[/center]

No it did not require torture - the torture was just evil being evil.

It's interesting that you might not think that a blood sacrifice was NEEDED, and yet the god sent his only son anyway knowing, presumably the future. ( some Christians think that God knows everything )

____________

Question:

• 
  
  If humiliation, torture and death on a cross wasn't needed, why did God put his son into that situation, or at least, take him out of it when it started to happen?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]




[center]All it takes for humans to forgive is the will to do it. God seems to need blood.
Part One[/center]

How can God be all powerful if he is restricted in his ability to forgive?

How much power does it take to be be good? Or to be merciful? Or to love? What has power got to do with it?

I would say that all it takes to be considered good is to do good stuff.. Forgiving is also an action... When I want to forgive someone, I just go ahead and forgive the person, maybe tell that person ( or not ) but I don't sacrifice my son for some reason.

Odd how that works for God.

[OnceConvinced]

In order for humans to forgive we go through an emotional state and move past the slight.

In order for God to forgive he has to have a ritualistic blood sacrifice involving torture of a pure being to forgive even the slightest of offenses.

Don't forget that he also will not forgive us if we do not forgive others.

Matt 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

The conditions on God's forgiveness pile up.

I'm sure glad that we as humans are able to forgive others without people having to grovel at our feet.

How can God be all powerful if he is restricted in his ability to forgive?

His restrictions would be self imposed, ie, he simply refuses to forgive. Matt 6:15 shows us this. He will simply reject you and not forgive you, no matter how much you may beg him to forgive you.

How can God be all merciful if there is a sacrifice restriction on his mercy?

He can't be considered merciful. If innocent blood has to be spilt before he will forgive, then that shows a barbaric and primitive God who has little value for life. I am glad that we humans can forgive without innocent blood having to be spilt.

Why does God have a lower capacity of forgiveness than humans?

I can only surmise these possibilities:
- He is extremely hard hearted
- He is just stubborn
- He doesn't really want to forgive
- He is bloodthirsty
- He is very vindictive

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 7 by ttruscott]

When a person commits a capital crime and a righteous and properly appointed Judge condemns him to a just sentence of death, then he owes his life to the judge or too his victims or to justice but a death is required

Which has nothing to do with forgiveness, also the death penalty has been banned in most states and the developed world. So no a "death" is not required. We are also not talking about just death either but even the smallest of slights requires a blood sacrifice.

Let's also bear in mind that a judge does not require an innocent victim imprisoned or executed. In fact I would think any human judge would be horrified if an innocent person was punished instead of the guilty party.

You definitely can't consider it justice if an innocent man is punished instead of the guilty.

[ttruscott]

Accordingly, God is a kind of house divided against itself. He wants to forgive, but he also wants to punish. This conflict is resolved by God taking it out on his innocent Son. For many today, including myself, this theory is unjust and contradictory, and modern theologians such as myself have sought other alternatives. Forgiveness means, at a minimum, remission of punishment, and the penal-substitutionary theory makes it plain God is not truly forgiving or loving.

If you know anything from me you know that I do not accept that HE wants to punish and forgive the same people at the same time. HE is not divided in HIMself. Nor is HE divided as within the Trinity, YHWH vs the the Son, Jesus for instance. NO division all - all must be reconciled. Both the Father and the Son want to fulfill the condemnation they pronounced already upon the wicked reprobate and both the Father and the Son want to fulfill the promise of forgiveness given to the sinful elect before they sinned.

Two groups of people, the elect and the non-elect; two different strategies for dealing with them, redemption and banishment to the outer darkness.

Therefore no one took anything out on the Son and I've never heard of any Church with this as their doctrine - it sounds sort of Urantia like at best and they often like to come across as Christian.

Forgiveness means, at a minimum, remission of punishment which the ransom theory provides. What it doesn't provide is the doctrine of universal salvation which you espouse since not all are paid for nor forgiven. The fact of damnation doesn't prove HE is unloving nor unforgiving - it just means that some people chose to be outside of HIS grace, rejecting any and all of HIS help, forever refusing to come into accord with HIM so as to be righteous and holy by their free will.

Only HE can break the grip that evil has on their minds and desires once they sinned but they have denied HIM to give them that help by their free will and for a free will decision to mean anything, it must mean that HE will not change it (make them HIS puppet) just because HE thought it was wrong or that HE knows they will suffer greatly for it. A free will choice must be sacrosanct even if it destroys their ability to make any other free will decision ever again.