Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 larry 2/4/84; site hlwpc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!hlexa!hlwpc!cb
From: cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND
Message-ID: <495@hlwpc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 13:22:13 EST
Article-I.D.: hlwpc.495
Posted: Tue Mar 12 13:22:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 01:18:02 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ
Lines: 86

>God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins.  Why?
>If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us.  Why "kill" his
>son?

It has to do with God's perfect justice.  God declared that the penalty
for sin was death (read - separation from God).  Since he is a perfect
and unchangeable God, he couldn't go back on his word and excuse our sins
without the death penalty being paid.  But since He loved his people
so much and didn't want to see them all die (i.e. be separated from Him),
he sent Jesus to pay that penalty for all.  How could Jesus do this?
By living a perfect (sinless) life on earth.  The death of anyone else
wouldn't do, because those who sin (i.e. all people) deserve death.
Only the death of someone who didn't deserve it would pay the price
in God's eyes.  This is what high-falutin' theologians call the concept
of "penal substitutionary atonement."  By putting our faith in Jesus,
the price he paid is credited to us.

>It seems God was making a sacrifice.
In a way, yes.  Jesus, who was God incarnate, made the sacrifice.
>To whom?  Himself?
No, to God the Father.
>Is there a more powerful being?  If so, God can't be omnipotent.
While Jesus was no less God than God the Father, there is a
"reporting relationship" in the trinity.  Jesus is fully God,
but he "reports" to God the Father.  The Holy Spirit is fully God,
but it "reports" to Jesus.  This analogy to the business world is a
good one, because while subordinates report to superiors, both are
fully and equally human.

>If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do.
>Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice.  If at some point in my life
>I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a".  Therefore
>I can't pick b.  But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though
>he knows they had no alternative.

Just because he knows what you will do doesn't mean he orders you
to do it.  The problem here is one of perspective.  The following
explanation is from a C. S. Lewis book(sorry, can't remember which):
Our perspective of time is one-dimensional.  We can look back on a time
line and see what has happened, and look forward and foresee
what will happen in a limited way.
But God can see the whole time line at once.
He is not bound in time like we are.
Another theological explanation to the above problem -- God has to
give freedom of choice, because if he didn't we'd all be robots.
And as robots, we wouldn't be capable of loving him fully, since true love
cannot be ordered, programmed, extracted or coerced.
Since God is a god of love, to not offer the freedom necessary
to express love would be contrary to his nature.

>The only way out of this is if God doesn't know absolutely everything.
>Therefore, he isn't omniscient.  Since omniscience is a power, he can't
>be omnipotent.

I think the above two explanations are "ways out" that don't compromise
God's omniscience or omnipotence.

>Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in
>God.  Bull.

I agree, to an extent.  Many Christians believe that man, on his own,
is so mired in sin that he cannot choose to repent of his sin
and accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ without first being
moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.
However, once moved by the Holy Spirit,
the commitment to follow Christ has to be made by the individual.
This becomes pretty complicated, and I'd prefer it if a trained theologian
takes over the explanation from here.

>What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and
>the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of
>other religions.

I'm a Christian, and that pisses me off too (I'm a bit short on Christian
love and patience at times, I'll admit).  I've seen troubled Christians
and happy non-Christians, and I won't even stick my neck out and say that
MOST Christians are happier, etc.
In fact, there are times when being a Christian is tougher, which can
mean less happiness and contentment in the short term.
Like when you have to deal with sins that the secular world thinks
nothing of.  However, a Christian who is faithful will overcome these
short-term disappointments and achieve a joy and peace that come from
being in conformity to God's will.

>Chris Larsen at CMU
Carl Blesch