Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site qantel.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!qantel!ken From: ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Re: A pridefull man's reaction to a Holy God. Message-ID: <279@qantel.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 11:53:45 EST Article-I.D.: qantel.279 Posted: Thu Nov 1 11:53:45 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 20:28:53 EST References: <516@watdcsu.UUCP>, <246@qantel.UUCP> <543@watdcsu.UUCP>, <263@qantel.UUCP> <1071@trwrba.UUCP> Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA Lines: 102 > O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the > moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus > Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is > accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him > because of it. > > You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough > to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? For someone who believes in eons > of eternal torment for millions upon millions of sinners, it didn't > strike you as a hedge of any kind? This sort of rational is FAR too > neurotic for a truly holy god. Yes, Christ death on the cross was enough to atone for the sins of ALL mankind. Though I don't have a Bible with me here at work, I will find you the scriptures to support this if you like. Why is this far too neurotic? I don't see the connection. God makes up the rules. > You're living in an Old Testiment theology that says for every sin there must > be a sacrificial shedding of blood. Why would a Holy God sacrifice his own > son ... in the same many that the priests of Baal did? The theology of shed blood for remission of sins is not just a Old Testiment idea. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." God required blood sacrifices of animals in the Old Testiment. These sacrifices didn't take away sin, they merely covered it over. Why is this? Because the people offering the sacrifices were sinners themselves. A perfect sacrifice was necessary for the removal of all sin. Jesus Christ was this perfect sacrifice. Now no other sacrifices are necessary, "it is finished". > Remember Abraham's > objections when God wanted him to sacrifice HIS only son? You don't think > that these objections were valid? I think they're quite valid still. > > I wonder if Abraham will be condemned for HIS rebellious attitude towards God? Abraham in no way objected to sacrificing his son. He had faith that if he were to kill his son, that God would raise him from the dead. God was testing Abraham's faith and obediance, and Abraham passed with flying colors. He was not rebellious. > Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes > are displayed throughout nature. > > Man's or God's? I am offering more than just a snide play on words here. > How does one discern the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence? > How do you tell the difference between a natural or diety-created artifact? > The real danger here is that of injecting your own ideas and beliefs into > what should be an objective observation. Whose intelligence is really being > reflected here? Man's or God's? In short.. which end of the telescope is the > intelligence on Mr. Lowell? Man did not create trees or sky, did he? I think nature is what I said. Man had no involvement in the creation of nature. When we see the perfect balance of nature (if man isn't corrupting it) it shows some of God's attributes. A thunderstorm can show us the power that God has at his disposal for example. > Though a man can see this, He will over the course of his life, > find ways to explain away the evidences and knowledge of God > that he once possesed... > > Far too neat and tidy... like the shrinks who try to catigorize people > into nice little bins and then go on to classify all of their neurosis > as the causal result of this or that fixation. WHY should EVERY man > EVER born want to turn away from God if they had even the slightest > glimmer of knowledge about him? Pride? No... it's far too easy an answer. > And it doesn't even hold water. Just because you don't believe that man is this way, does this change the fact that the Bible says he is (Romans 1). It even states the reason, "They chose not to honer Him as God, or give thanks." This sounds like pride to me. > Men instinctivly.... > > Instinct? Instilled by God? This instinct became a part of man after the fall of Adam and Eve. Because their pride was exposed by their desire for the fruit of the tree, all men also inherited this pride and self sufficient attitude. > But the first part of my sentence is true. You do now want to > accept the fact that there is a deity that you will be > accountable to. You have so much pride in yourself, that you > will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition > by the only person that can help you, Jesus Christ. You will > not know God until you deny that silly pride. > > But the first part of my analysis is true. You do now want to accept > the fact that there are no pink elephants. You have so much pride in > youself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad > condition by the only person in Vienna that can help you, Sigmund > Freud. You will not know mental health until you deny that silly > fixation of yours. I have no evidence, subjective or else, that tell me to put my destiny in the hands of pink elephants. But I do have evidence, although mostly subjective, about the truth of God. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ---------------