In the comments section of my recent post, God is Love, Christ is Pain, an atheist reader asked me why God had to sacrifice himself in order to forgive us.
“If a god who is omnipotent wanted to forgive us,” he wrote, “couldn’t he just forgive us, and make it so we never forget? Why sacrifice himself to himself?”
In response I wrote this:
By dying in the manner he did, Christ knew he was creating an image so vivid, and so visceral, that it would forever last in people’s minds, hearts, and imaginations. God couldn’t ‘just’ forgive us without getting personally involved, without bringing it down to our level—without, ultimately, his very graphic mortal expiration on the cross. Because he knew that nothing but something that extraordinary would stick with us. He knew that people tend to forget, that we naturally get so focused on our own lives that the reality of God—which is, after all, a fairly nebulous conception—tends to slip first from our minds, and then from our hearts. Jesus didn’t want that to happen. He wanted us to remember what he had done for us. So he made the means by which we are eternally forgiven as real for us as he possibly good—and that meant availing himself of the sheer, raw, dramatic magnitude of the crucifixion.
Jesus didn’t sacrifice himself for his sake. He did it for ours. And so he made sure to do it in a manner that we’d never be able to forget. And, sure enough, we haven’t.
So to expand on that a bit:
Jesus knew that people would always know that he knew that he was God. Time and again Jesus says, either explicitly or implicitly, that he is God—as he does, for instance, at John 10:30, when he says, “I and the Father are one.” So there’s no question that Jesus knew he was God. How could he not?
Now, if Jesus knew that he was God, and he knew that we knew that he knew that, then he also knew that a lot of us wouldn’t be able to help but think that he, in a way that we very definitely don’t ever, had it made in the shade.
Jesus was God. It can’t get any better than that, can it? And he knew that he was God. He knew that his story was going to end well. He knew that when his adventure here on earth was over, he was going back to heaven to take his place at the right hand of the Father.
None of us are quite so assured of our fate, are we? We can say that we are—we can claim full confidence that we are going to heaven. But the bottom line is that we don’t have anywhere near the assurance of our ultimate fate as Jesus had of his. We can’t possibly.
So Jesus is stuck. He wants us to know that he truly and fully identifies with us—yet, at the same time, he knows that we know that he’s a good deal more than mortal.
So what does Jesus do? He chooses to demonstrate for us the complete depth of his identification with us, by allowing himself to die on the cross in the horrible manner that he did. Because he knew that we would always remember the nightmare of the crucifix. God or not, Jesus got tortured. His body was beaten and flayed to a pulp. He knew that if he allowed himself to suffer that prolonged and horrible violence, we would never be able to deny his dedication to identifying with us.
He made sure that we knew that he suffered as we suffer. And then some.
And when his final moment came—when his pain and suffering had reached its terrible crescendo—Jesus proved to us that his identification with us was absolute and complete. Jesus showed us that at the moment of his death he felt himself no more God than we do.
“My God, my God,” he howled. “Why have you forsaken me?”
That’s not a God crying.
That’s one of us.
We know Jesus was God because he defied death. And we know he was mortal because of the way he died.
************************
(The follow-up post to this post — which I wrote in response to some of the very good questions raised in the lively comments section below — is Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?)
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 102 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
They both mention Jesus as an actual person. More importantly, Matthew, Peter and John knew Jesus personally during His earthly ministry and wrote about Him, albeit after His crucifixion. True, they were not historians and were close to their subject, but that by itself is not reason to dismiss their testimony.
As for secular sources remember it was only three years from the beginning of Jesus' ministry to His crucifixion, and His was one of many religious movements in the area at that time. So it's not too surprising that it was generally overlooked by writers or that its significance was not appreciated.
People can obviously believe whatever they want about Jesus but this idea that we don't really know anything about Him is, to me, mind boggling.
Andy,
Last I checked, those historians you mention only confirm the existence of Christians, not the historicity of Jesus. Nor do they confirm the miracles.
There are sources outside the Bible and close to the time of Jesus which refer to Jesus’ earthly life and crucifixion, and circumstances surrounding it, including Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus’ (AD 55-120) Annals and Jewish historian Josephus’ (AD 37/38-100+) Jewish Antiquities.
The resurrection is a miracle that is hard to dismiss. Only the Bible offers a satisfactory explanation for why Jesus’ tomb was empty after three days, as incredible as it may seem. This is just one example, I have many other reasons for my belief that the Word is Truth.
Most of the writers of the books of the OT claim to have witnessed the events they describe or they present the book as an authentic history taken from contemporary accounts. They appear to have been serious people, possessing historical information corroborated by other ancient sources which someone just making it up would not have known, who believed that what they were writing was true, and who expected it to be taken seriously. A dispassionate historian who approaches such a historical work as he would any other such work is, admittedly, going to take the supernatural events with a grain of salt. But he will also take everything else seriously unless he has other evidence which contradicts it. It’s true that the earliest surviving manuscript copies for the OT only go back to the 3rd cent. BC. But this does not prove that the books were not written until then. When it comes to a serious historical work, such as the Bible, the burden of evidence is born by those claiming that the work is not accurate or authentic or is otherwise not what it purports to be.
I would refer to the First Council of Nicea for an introduction to the credibility of bible stories. From there you may want to learn about the various later translations from scribe to scribe.
The earliest Christian bible stories were oral stories that were not committed to writing until long after the events that the bible purports to tell. Unless of course you count some of the various original sources, such as the stories of Mithra or Horace, which tell the same stories (only the names are changed) and pre-date the alleged birth of Jesus. At it’s heart, Christianity is a well known plagiarism of many other religions.
The truth is out there, look it up…
Googling 'the authenticity of the New Testament' returns some interesting results.
Christopher, it seems to me you are grasping at straws here. First, the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament date back to 125 A.D. That means the manuscripts were produced less than 100 years after the events they describe, and less than 50 years after the original writings. In contrast, the earliest copies we have of works like the Odyssey and the Iliad are from over 3000 years after they were originally told, and scholars still consider them fairly reliable in terms of what the original stories said. When it comes to ancient texts, copies as close as 100 years after they were originally told can be presumed to be extremely close to the original texts.
As early as 170 A.D., there are copies of the New Testament that include basically all the books in our modern New Testament. In 300 A.D. (still before the First Council of Nicaea), Eusebius lists "the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles… the epistles of Paul… the epistle of John… the epistle of Peter… After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John," and calls them "the accepted writings." The remainder of the modern New Testament he lists as "the disputed writings," but he clearly differentiates those from "the rejected writings" and even more so from "the fictions of heretics." By calling them "the accepted writings," and "the disputed writings," he makes it very clear that Christians in his day had a solid consensus on the vast majority of the New Testament books, including as primary among "the accepted writings" the four gospels, which contained all the stories of Jesus' miracles.
Now, as for the First Council of Nicaea – I'm not quite sure what you mean by referring to this as "an introduction to the credibility of bible stories." Held in 325 A.D., all 1800 bishops of the Christian church were invited to attend (though only about 300 did). The primary purpose was to address the Arian question as to whether Jesus was in fact equal to God or whether he was created by God (and thus inferior to Him). Of the 300 or so bishops present, there were 22 who supported Arius – until they heard the substance of his writings, at which point they realized he was in conflict with the established position of the church through the centuries from the very time of Jesus Himself.
I just don't see how the presence of one person who misunderstood the biblical teaching, or the agreement of the church that he was the one who had misunderstood, has any impact on the credibility of Bible stories across the board.
As for the stories of Mithra and Horace, did it occur to you that if in fact there is a God, and there is an enemy of God such as the Bible describes, it is only natural that the enemy would attempt to counterfeit God's real work?
"When you say “evidence” are you excluding the Bible? Why should the Bible not be considered evidence?"
The Bible is certainly evidence, just not terrible good evidence.
Independent verification from sources that were written during the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived would do a wonderful job of supporting the Bible.
It would also help if we had good evidence for miracles taking place. That would give the claims made in the bible some standing.
Christopher, my understanding is that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, which was replaced as the colloquial language in Palestine by Aramaic in the centuries following the fall of the Northern Kingdom in the 8th century BC but continued to be the literary language of the Jews. The common dialect of Greek became an alternative language in areas conquered by Alexander the Great (4th cent. BC). The OT was translated into Greek in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (the Septuagint or LXX). This Greek was the literary language for the New Testament writers. Christ spoke Aramaic but understood Greek. Paul knew all three of these languages (and Latin).
You said,
“By dying as he did, Christ knew that he would be creating an image of that act that was so vivid, and so visceral, that it would forever last in people’s minds, hearts and imaginations.”
I say,
The image is not vivid or visceral to me. Also not to many others. My mind, heart and imagination are only momentarily moved by this thrice told tale. What really gets me motivated is when something new is learned. Or happens.
Thanks anyhow, I guess.
E Pluribus Unum
When you say "evidence" are you excluding the Bible? Why should the Bible not be considered evidence? How could Jesus read scripture in the synagogue if He couldn't write? If you don't think Paul wrote all those books in the NT, who do you think did?
I've got to go to work now.
There is no evidence that Jesus or Paul could write. We have writings that may have been written as early as 70 CE that describe Jesus or Paul. We can't even be sure that these person's even existed. Any real person's on whom these characters were based may have gone by other names, and they most certainly did not do any of the magical things that are attributed to them.
There is now a profundity of archeological evidence that Nazareth and Jerusalem were, from about 1 to 35 CE, not as the books of the bible describe. For instance, Nazareth was uninhabited for decades before and after this time.
Bible scholars tend to the idea that the authors of the Christian bible wrote it assuming that things were the same in the past as were in their present.
Any way you cut it, any book with so many factual errors (and you know there are many more) cannot be relied upon as the basis for any truth about the universe. It is a book in the same category as the Illiad or the Odyssey.
Did you know:
The oldest books of the Christian Bible were written in Greek?
None of the characters or places in the Bible spoke Greek?
—More evidence of the truth of the literal word!
Bob are you seriously parsing the Bible? Get real.
Dan said -
[quote]
It’s much more than all of the above, dear friends.
Two words, propitiation and justification and
Propitiation is an appeasing, propitiating – The wrath of Holy God had to be ‘appeased’
[/quote]
This is not quite correct. The term sometimes rendered "propitiate" for "appeasement" used in 1John 2:2 and Romans 3 is in fact same greek word used in the LXX (Septuagint) for "Atonement" in Lev 16 (the chapter where defines the Gospel Atonement process).
In "Atonement" God so LOVED that HE gave…
The NIV in 1John 2:2 and Romans 3 has it correct "Atoning Sacrifice".
But in the greek model of "appeasement" the model is "the angry God is so propitiated and appeased by the blood sacrifice of Christ that He finally is convinced to turn away His anger from mankind".
Those are two opposite models.
Bob — of Cliverty
"Christians, just like everyone else, don’t like being stereotyped."
Well said. There are over 3000 Christian Sects worldwide, many with incompatible creeds. One-third of the Earth's population claim to be Christian. Of the other two-thirds, a significant portion of them believe in multiple gods.
I see thoughtful people posting their religious interpretation of, "Why Did Christ Have to Sacrifice Himself to Himself?" Much of these interpretations are incompatible with the others. It's as if these thoughtful people were making up their own unique "religion of one".
Atheists are often confused by the way that god-believers can make certain assumptions about their beliefs, and that these same god-believers would not make the same kind of assumptions about other similar things in their life. For instance, many (if not all) of the posts above refer the the Christian Bible as the ultimate source of information about their messiah. This is an assumption that goes to the root of most Christian belief. It is nearly impossible to consider, for instance, Jesus, the Apostles, the Resurrection, and so forth, without reference to the Bible. It is, in fact, the origin of these stories.
One specific thing that is confusing is that god-believers make reference to their holy book without much knowledge of it's origins. Again, I presume that the thoughtful people who base their beliefs on certain books would in all other cases be open to the facts pertaining to those texts. For instance, a libertarian who holds up Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead as an important statement about their social beliefs should be aware that the philosophy of Act Utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed. (I hope I'm not writing too esoterically here.)
ANY case made about Christian belief must ultimately rely upon the Christian Bible. Only the Bible tells the story of the religion. There are no other corroborating texts. Sure, there are some historical documents that corroborate specific events, places, or people. But only the Bible tells of the religious, spiritual, magical, miraculous stuff. (Not counting the "unofficial" biblical stories from the Apocrypha).
So, if biblical stories are themselves of a dubious nature and origin, a thoughtful person might choose to relegate them to the same category of book as, say, the Illiad or the Oddysey.
Legitimate discussion of biblical stories MUST include evaluation of the authority of the fundamental text from which those stories originate. I encourage Christians to look into the historical origins of their holy book. You might want to read about the First Council of Nicea for a good head start…
Well put, Andy.
I've got to take a crack at the question: Why did Christ have to sacrifice Himself to Himself? I want to throw in my 2 cents. I finally got to the end of all the comments; I deserve it!
A price had to be paid for sin. Either we would pay it or God would. If we paid it we would pay with our lives, since nothing we can do will cover the cost.
God, because of His love, paid it for us. He didn't have to pay it, He could have just let us perish. That would not have been inconsistent with His righteousness and justice, but it would have been inconsistent with His love and mercy. I guess the price itself is discussed in the next post.
A response is required from us. God (again because of His love) has already given humanity the freedom to choose. Having done that, if God forgave me without any willful choice or desire on my part to be right in His eyes, be forgiven, or have anything to do with Him, He would in effect be sweeping my sin under the rug. This would be a violation of His righteousness and justice, which would be impossible for Him to do. So God has a part and we have a part. God's part is to pay the price for us. Our part is to want to be forgiven, want to be His child.
A mediator is required. A mediator, of course, brings two parties which are in conflict together. In order for a mediator to be effective he or she must be able to identify with both sides. A priest is a mediator between God and humans. A really effective priest must be able to identify with both God and humans.
Jesus is the effective priest. He is many other things. The Word, the King, the Prophet. The part of God which went out from God, came to this world, and took the form of a man. He came to be our great High Priest. He is able, unlike a human, to identify with God because He is God; He has the divine nature. And He can identify with us because He was a man just like me. Jesus the great High Priest bridged the gap, He brought God and us together. God, who stands outside of space and time, is able to look at His Son on the cross, shedding His blood, and say, "I accept your sacrifice for the sins of those who repent and believe." And I am able to look at Jesus' sacrifice and say, "He paid the price for my sin so that I am forgiven of the things for which I am ashamed."
"If you had any real faith in an afterlife, you would engage in some high-risk activities while drunk and smoking, or do some word-juggling in the Bible to justify your hasty suicide. (Samson did it, and went straight to heaven. Jesus, too. “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” (John 10:17-18)"
You would be right… if it were just about salvation, we'd disappear from the earth immediately after salvation and fly up to heaven. But God calls us to use our time on earth to know Him better and to show Him to the world. In other words, it's not all about me. I personally believe God also wants us to do good works, not as a means to salvation but as a way of showing our love for Him ("If you love me, obey my commands") and others.
And Jesus didn't go 'straight to heaven'. He went to Hell for three days. That is also part of the sacrifice He made.
WOW i got so immersed in the analogy I forgot to mention that if the mystery coin collector ^ got the gumball out again, he would get the penny back.
But do you see the difference? Something that's worth nothing, and you know you will get it back, versus something that is worth everything, which you could lose?
Molly:
I don't think that the 'slug nickel' analogy is a good one because, first of all, a slug nickel is not worth anything; whereas according to the Bible Jesus is God's beloved and only son. Maybe instead of a slug nickel we can use a 1969-S Lincoln Cent with a double die obverse, one of the most valuable coins in circulation, and for the sake of the analogy we'll say the gumballs are worth a penny.
So you want a gumball. Someone comes up to you and sees you looking longingly at the gumball machine. They have one coin and it's this 1969-S Lincoln penny. Worth about $30 grand or more.
Also, I personally believe that Jesus could have failed because when He was on earth He was fully man. Therefore, not only was God putting something very valuable 'in the gumball machine', he could have lost it. (Living a life without sinning was something that hadn't been done before. I certainly haven't lived a perfect life and don't know anyone who would say they have.) So we have to change the analogy again.
No one has ever gotten a gumball out of the gumball machine before, no matter how shiny the penny. It always eats the coins. Everybody thinks it's broken.
So this stranger comes up to you, knows the gumball machine hasn't ever given anybody a gumball, puts this valuable coin in knowing he could lose it… Is that a sacrifice?
I am just trying to understand what you believe, and thinking you probably are somewhat interested in what i believe as well. Or else you wouldn't be here (on this blog, reading and responding) right now.
Well, I am a realtively "new" believer and I must say…I love this blog…it is packed with info!
lots and lots of comments.
I am still learning a lot and I think I found a wonderful blog to help me study!!
in Christ
Andrea
Natanis, it was implied in your premise. There is no way to deny your own words:
The implication you very clearly make here is:
1. My God exists.
2. Atheists really know that He exists, but they refuse to "acknowledge" Him.
I am an atheist. I do not know that your God exists. With your statement above you are calling me a liar. Not explicitly, but implicitly.
The result is the same, however.
I am certainly not angered by your god belief. I am angered by the fact that you do not seem to be able to comprehend that a person can lack god belief. That god belief can be absent within them. Instead you imply that at best they are lying to themselves, and at worst lying to others about their lack of god belief. The fact that most theists think exactly the way you do, and treat me a certain way based on this false information also angers and frustrates me.
Not all the time, of course, or I'd go insane.
But when I am commenting in a thread devoted specifically to this very topic, I sometimes allow that anger and frustration an outlet and write about it. I guarantee that if we met socially you would not experience any anger or frustration from me at all – even if you were preaching at me. I have long experience in situations like that, and I do not let it get to me any longer.
*sigh* I would not ridicule you for having a different opinion than me, Natanis. You are missing the point.
You spoke also about "respect" above. I agree that people deserve a basic modicum of respect from their fellow human beings. I always accord that basic level of respect to anyone that I meet. We are all humans together on this planet, and that is the social lubricant that (generally speaking) keeps us from slaughtering each other all the time.
However, I do not automatically grant respect to whatever wacky notion about reality someone may hold. Opinions can earn respect from me, but I will not give your opinions respect as a matter of course. If I think they are silly, I'll say so – sometimes in very forceful language, if I think that it warrants that.
Don't ever confuse my disrespect of your ideas and your opinions with disrespect for you as a human being. I fully understand that all we can do in this life is muddle through the best we can, and subjectively try and get a handle on how things work.
That doesn't mean that I have to respect your ideas though, and I don't. I think they are silly, irrelevant, irrational, and contrary to observed reality.
<blockquote.My God is not a “flavor of magical man in the sky”.
Yes, yes he is. When you look at a listing of deities that have been worshiped by various tribes and societies of humans throughout our long history you begin to see that your god, "God", is merely one of the latest in a long list of magical men in the sky. Our species seems to be hardwired to create and worship magical sky men.
You don't see it because you are too close to it.
When you step out of it, like many atheists have done, and look at it from an objective point of view, it is glaringly, blindingly obvious.
Not that I expect you to agree.
Absolutely. Mea culpa. I posted it, read it, then went to edit it to remove that particular phrase…
…and there's no way to edit comments here.
So, sorry. I'll be more careful in the future before clicking the 'Say It!" button.
John, I didn't read all the comments so you may already have addressed this point. I liked your article in that you present what I believe to be an accurate representation of atonement theology insofar as you present a loving God, rather than a cosmic child abuser.
I would disagree with the statement that Jesus was beaten on the cross. You may be saying that tongue-in-cheek but I think it is hugely important that people understand that the cross is the very place Jesus reigned. While the powers that be, Rome and the Jewish leadership, believed they were subjecting Jesus to public humiliation, he was doing so to them.
I hope you don't think I'm splitting hairs but I think it is an important point.
Col 2:14 He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
To get back on topic…
John said,
“Jeus was God. It doesn’t get any better than that. And he knew he was God. He knew his story was going to end well. He knew that when his adventure here on earth was over, he was going back to heaven to take his place at the right hand of the Father. There’s no way that’s not a wonderful place to be.”
Yes, He knew it would end well, and He also knew the torture He would have to endure before the end. Somehow people seem to think because He was God He didn’t really endure the horror. He was equally man. He felt every excruciating moment of His ordeal – He suffered terribly. Most victims of crucifixion did not endure the toruture, the lashing with the cat-o-nines-tail up to the point of death. It was usually one or the other, not both. That is one of the reasons scholars believe He died so quickly, He was brutally beaten before the crucifixion. He was sacrificed.
John also said,
“None of us are quite that lucky, are we? We can say that we do, but the bottom line is that we don’t have anywhere near the assurance about our ultimate fate as Jesus had about his. It’s not possible that we could.”
This is where I’m not following the line of thought – we will all, who put our faith in Jesus’ work on the cross, enjoy the presence of God once we’ve endured our individual deaths. That’s the point of the resurrection, isn’t it? Eternal life. Whatever form it takes (i.e. the New Eden, Paradise, the New Jerusalem, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb) we will be known as He is known. We will take on immortality and be glorified. Not at the right hand of God – that place is taken – but we will be joint heirs with Christ – be assured.
Again, John,
“What Jesus wants, though, if for us to fully understand the complete depth of his identification with us. And that, I think, is why he let himself die on the cross in the horrible fashion that he did. Because he knew that we would always understand how terribly, terribly real that was. God or not, he got beaten. He knew that we would forever after that understand that he did become one of us. He did suffer the worst any of us could. That, too, is not in question.”
Amen. He is our High Priest who completely “gets us”. I can go to Him with my weaknesses and He understands what I’m feeling. He knows what it is to be confined to the flesh. He experienced the flesh, with all its weaknesses, yet overcame the world. It really is beautiful. I mean, think about it, if I were the creator of a new breed of insect and I loved that breed above all others, and wanted that breed to be able to enjoy me too…Would I be willing to become that being in order to have fellowship? Wouldn’t it be a huge sacrifice on my part to leave my comfortable suburban lifestyle to live among the bugs? (I know it’s a pathetic analogy, but work with me here) To leave the splendor of heaven, the cosmos moving at your whim, speak and new worlds come into existence, angels continually singing your praises because of your awesome beauty, so magnificent is your glory that the beings of heaven hide their faces in worship…the words are too inadequate to express what it must have been. And yet He sacrificed it all to experience life among us – to feel the limitations of being human. And then to endure the worst torture man could know…
I call that sacrifice.
“Congress has never ever forced one person in the entire history of our country to believe something they didn’t want to believe”
Well, this is not for lack of trying. This may not be the correct forum for such discussions…but the battles concerning Decalogue monuments on government property, the word ‘god’ on money and in the pledge, denying homosexuals equal rights and the attempt to put creationism in public schools are still going on to this day.
Brent makes a good point no believer can deny. No can actually believe without convincing evidence. No philosophical, theological, or scientific argument can prove or disprove God exists. If the biblical God is real, he is a person who convinces people with or without any help from His believers. However, the same bible and history suggest that he very often work with and through his believers in various ways. However, a Tibetan Buddhist monk a few years back died and was about to be cremated when he came back to life. Before hundreds of witnesses, he said the Christians are right. Buddha and some other venerate saint are in hell. Jesus is the only way to heaven. A missionary in another area heard about this and checked it out to see if it was true. He claims several hundred Indonesians who heard including relatives claimed it was true. This info was on the web–maybe it still is. The point is, if so, God is not dependent upon in one way to convince people of his reality.
As Christians, maybe we should pray that God makes his existence known to those who do not believe.
– by Loser
One last thing. Should anyone in here desire to continue reasonable and intelligent discourse , feel free to email me at dancartwright@msn.com.
Morse
Congress has never ever forced one person in the entire history of our country to believe something they didn’t want to believe. Like trying to force a rock to fly, can be done.
Brent, sorry I offended you with my statement. I didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to vocalize my personal experiences in my faith:) and that is exactly what that was. My experience.
It's interesting how you are so easily angered that I believe in God. I don't expect you to share my beliefs, but I would appreciate it if you had the decency to respect them, just as I respect your right to believe there is no God.
I understand your need for evidence. Over the years I have compiled enough evidence in my own quest for truth to come to the conclusion that there is a God. What is true for me may never be right for you and I have no issue with your unbelief.
My God is not a "flavor of magical man in the sky" He is not a genie to give me all my wants, He is not someone I pray to and expect to get everything I ask for, He is not hiding behind a bush waiting to punish me for all my wrong thoughts, but I won't waste your time telling you who He is to me because you will surely ridicule me for having a different opinion than you.
By the way, if your only view of a possible God is a lunatic who is waiting to strike you down for every wrong thought etc. etc. I don't blame you for rejecting the possibility….i would too.
BTW – I NEVER called you a liar. You put words in my mouth and that's rude
I wrote my answer to what the atonement is. That, my latest post, is here:
http://johnshore.com/2008/02/26/inquiring-ath…
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 4 trackbacks }