"God gave his only son..."

[SoundMaster]

Often, Christians will discuss the (alleged) fact that God gave or sacrificed his son for the sake of humanity. This statement is generally made within the context of human understanding and compassion, however.

If you or I had to sacrifice a son or daughter to death, we'd be miserably heartbroken...understandably so.

However, per the religion itself, both Yahweh and Yeshua ben Joseph were/are immortal deities.
How then am I supposed to then bring them down to the mere level of humanity? If God (Yahweh) would feel the same horrible feelings that mere mortals would, and would grieve for his son, is he then, in actuality, a god?
And, for a moment, let's assume that Jesus couldn't come back to him. Being a god, surely Yahweh could just create a new son, right? Or, at the least, being a god he could squash the feelings of lonliness and grief that he'd feel. If he couldn't, can he really be classified as a god?

Being a god, his son wouldn't be gone for too long, as he'd be joining him in heaven, in due time. Again, where's the need for sympathy for that?

This concept just can't be brought down to human terms. If/when it is, it loses all relevance. Either god is greater than us, or he's not. If he's not, he's no god at all.

This is one of the many things that drove me away from Christianity and forced my 'retirement' from it.

 

[milkman]

Where does it say that God had to feel sad/grieve?

 

[JColtrane]

Often, Christians will discuss the (alleged) fact that God gave or sacrificed his son for the sake of humanity. This statement is generally made within the context of human understanding and compassion, however.

If you or I had to sacrifice a son or daughter to death, we'd be miserably heartbroken...understandably so.

However, per the religion itself, both Yahweh and Yeshua ben Joseph were/are immortal deities.
How then am I supposed to then bring them down to the mere level of humanity? If God (Yahweh) would feel the same horrible feelings that mere mortals would, and would grieve for his son, is he then, in actuality, a god?
And, for a moment, let's assume that Jesus couldn't come back to him. Being a god, surely Yahweh could just create a new son, right? Or, at the least, being a god he could squash the feelings of lonliness and grief that he'd feel. If he couldn't, can he really be classified as a god?

Being a god, his son wouldn't be gone for too long, as he'd be joining him in heaven, in due time. Again, where's the need for sympathy for that?

This concept just can't be brought down to human terms. If/when it is, it loses all relevance. Either god is greater than us, or he's not. If he's not, he's no god at all.

This is one of the many things that drove me away from Christianity and forced my 'retirement' from it.

I don't intend to be mean, but in order to be honest I must say this entire post shows an ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general. A basic doctrine of Christianity is the concept of the Trinity. In this way you can see how your whole post is flawed-God the Father and God the Son are one. So of course, the idea that God the Father could just create another God the Son is ridiculous.

Also, God the Son had to go through an immense amount of suffering, especially on the cross where he bore the guilt of all sins--that he would return to Heaven is not the point, the point is the suffering.

 

[SoundMaster]

Where does it say that God had to feel sad/grieve?

Not where. Rather, by whom. Many Christian apologists often adopt this mantra....attempting to place a sense of "humanity" on this particular facet of their religion.

 

[SoundMaster]

I don't intend to be mean, but in order to be honest I must say this entire post shows an ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general. A basic doctrine of Christianity is the concept of the Trinity. In this way you can see how your whole post is flawed-God the Father and God the Son are one. So of course, the idea that God the Father could just create another God the Son is ridiculous.

Also, God the Son had to go through an immense amount of suffering, especially on the cross where he bore the guilt of all sins--that he would return to Heaven is not the point, the point is the suffering.

Again, no where does my OP state that this is text of the Bible. Rather, this is a view that many Christians use when discussing the 'saving' of humanity.
I posted this in response to a debate/discussion I had at work today with a Christian who raised this argument.
My point was that her argument can't be brought into human terms....again, no supreme super-being could/should feel the weak human emotions of grief, sorrow, etc., because if they do, can they rightly be labelled "supreme"?
(but, as always, man creates god(s) in his image, as opposed to vice-versa)

In reality, it's the Christian himself who poses this argument that needs schooling on his own holy text.

By on another note, why is the idea of God creating another son ridiculous?
Please elaborate.

 

[JColtrane]

I was not aware that grief or sadness were considered weak emotions. Please elaborate on this idea.

God cannot create another Son, because God and the Son are one and the same. Since the Christian God is an eternal being, it is obvious that there would never be any need for God to create another Son, nor would it be possible--for if the Son ceased to exist the Father would cease to exist also, for the Son is not merely a part of God but is fully God--and God the Father is fully God also. I know to us humans this appears to be a paradox, but we are talking about God, after all.

 

[SoundMaster]

I was not aware that grief or sadness were considered weak emotions. Please elaborate on this idea.

God cannot create another Son, because God and the Son are one and the same. Since the Christian God is an eternal being, it is obvious that there would never be any need for God to create another Son, nor would it be possible--for if the Son ceased to exist the Father would cease to exist also, for the Son is not merely a part of God but is fully God--and God the Father is fully God also. I know to us humans this appears to be a paradox, but we are talking about God, after all.

Perhaps "weak" was the wrong choice of words.
These are qualities that are generally considered 'negatives'. Most sane people, do not want to feel sorrow and grief.
My point was that if one of these negatives is felt by a supreme being, he/she/it, logically, can't be much greater than us. Certainly, at least, far from perfect (an attribute often ascribed to God). With that said, the 'humanization' of this particular dogma holds no relevance, IMO.

As for the actual dogma itself (of God not being able to split the trinity, or not choosing to), does this not pose a problem of another sort? If God's unwilling to do this, then so be it.
But if he can't, then, again, how "supreme" is he?
It's like that old conundrum about God being unable to create a square circle.

 

[NeverIsForever]

If God did exist, why would he choose a human mother for his son? If God the Son is part of the Trinity should he not be possessed of the same omnipotence/omniscience as that theoretically inherent in God the Father? Mary was only human, imperfect as are we all. If Jesus, as God's son, is a figment of the Trinity, then why was Mary necessary?

 

[speed]

I don't intend to be mean, but in order to be honest I must say this entire post shows an ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general. A basic doctrine of Christianity is the concept of the Trinity. In this way you can see how your whole post is flawed-God the Father and God the Son are one. So of course, the idea that God the Father could just create another God the Son is ridiculous.

Also, God the Son had to go through an immense amount of suffering, especially on the cross where he bore the guilt of all sins--that he would return to Heaven is not the point, the point is the suffering.

No, No, No. The idea of the trinity is not only pagan, but it was not even in vogue until the 3rd century AD, where it became sponsered and taught by Athanasius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius . The early Christian view was Arianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism a different form of this so called trinity of yours, that was in effect resolved with the Council of Nicaea: one can read about this fight over the trinity here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism The nontrinitarians are found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

In fact, the whole debate over the trinity was of huge importance after Constantine spoiled the world with Chrisitianity--as one will discover if they read anything about this. And it was the first and probably most important split of Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholicism.

What is interesting, is the fight between many early christians who thought of Jesus as a God of equal power, or a man, turned into a god by the holy spirit. Either way, even the early chrisitians had the very same logical conundrum as SOundmaster, and even Constantine the Great and Eusebius couldnt solve it. Thus, its not as easy as it seems JColtrane, perhaps if one follows a strict and false orthodox way of thinking about Christianity as you do.

 

[infoterror]

Often, Christians will discuss the (alleged) fact that God gave or sacrificed his son for the sake of humanity.

As you mention, it doesn't mean much to die if you're going to heaven.

Also, it doesn't make sense to give a gift another person cannot repay - it's a form of manipulation, unless it's literally no strings attached, which it almost never is.

Christianity is a balance between Greek wisdom and Jewish mysticism. I'll take the former, and confine the latter to Israel, where it belongs - and nowhere else.

 

[JColtrane]

Speed, you cannot get all your sources from wikipedia.org. It is not the all knowing fount of knowledge. The idea of the Trinity is clearly supported by the Bible, if you want me to cite the verses for you I will. What you said about the doctrine of the Trinity not being popular until Athanasius is pure fiction. You can't take everything wrote in an online dictionary as fact. And when you said "No no no. The idea of trinity is not only pagan" that just makes you look ridiculous, I never claimed that, and I know that the idea of the Trinity was found in other religions.

 

[NeverIsForever]

I believe you've misunderstood him. I don't think he said "The idea of the trinity is not only pagan" claiming that you thought it WAS only pagan. I'm pretty sure he meant it as, "Not only did another religion invent the Trinity first, but also...(whatever else he said in that sentence)" etc etc.

And his remark about paganism is true, regardless of whether his information came from Wikipedia or not. Pagan deities were often viewed as having three "facets," if you will--maiden, mother, and crone if female; father, son and sage if male. And I didn't get that from Wikipedia either :Spin:

 

[JColtrane]

I don't know, it looks like to me he invented out of nowhere that I said that the Trinity was a purely Christian concept. And also, NeverIsForever, the Christian concept of the Trinity is not a three faceted God, but rather each person of the Trinity is fully God. Here's the basic Christian concept of the Trinity:
1)God is three persons.
2)Each person is fully God.
3)There is one God.

 

[Lord SteveO]

So in other words God almost has 3 differnt identities, like if i had three usernames on here. But they are all linked together and even though there's 3 of them they only count for one "entity".

 

[NeverIsForever]

Perhaps "facet" was the wrong word. Maybe I should have said "personification." What I meant was same deity, different form. But I believe my overall point was clear nonetheless?

 

[speed]

I believe you've misunderstood him. I don't think he said "The idea of the trinity is not only pagan" claiming that you thought it WAS only pagan. I'm pretty sure he meant it as, "Not only did another religion invent the Trinity first, but also...(whatever else he said in that sentence)" etc etc.

And his remark about paganism is true, regardless of whether his information came from Wikipedia or not. Pagan deities were often viewed as having three "facets," if you will--maiden, mother, and crone if female; father, son and sage if male. And I didn't get that from Wikipedia either :Spin:

thanks, I was a bit harsh, but Coltrane your bibilical and religious arrogance perturbs my own arrogance on the subject.

Well Wikipedia is the easiest place to get info on such subjects.

As for the bible stating the concept of the trinity: The New Testament was selected by the church after Constantine in the 300's as well( and i am too tired to get all the facts on this one) to support what their dogma. Have you read any of the gnostic gospels, many written before Matthew, John and Luke? They take the opposite belief to the trinity. THus, supporting my contention that the trinity was decided upon in the 300's, not by Jesus. This is one of the many additions, most likely inspired by a number of the pagan trinity cults.

So, your own orthodox beliefs on the subject should be questioned, because this issue was supposedly solved by the ROman empire, and later by constant inquisitions against non trinitarian sects such as the Nestorians, the Cathars, Marcionites etc etc. Essentially what I am saying is your dogmatic priniciples of faith in the trinity were decided by secular leaders that preferred to support the hierarchy of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I don't intend to be mean, but in order to be honest I must say this entire post shows an ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general. A basic doctrine of Christianity is the concept of the Trinity. In this way you can see how your whole post is flawed-God the Father and God the Son are one. So of course, the idea that God the Father could just create another God the Son is ridiculous.

Also, God the Son had to go through an immense amount of suffering, especially on the cross where he bore the guilt of all sins--that he would return to Heaven is not the point, the point is the suffering.

adding to this:

because the Son and Father are one God, the Father feels the Son's suffering, and shares the loss of the Son as a loss of oneself. it is a self sacrifice, God gives a part of himself for humanity.

speed: you say the "trinity" was a notion concieved circa Constantine... why then would Jesus call God his Father and refer to the Holy Spirit, when he also claims he is the Son of God and that there is only one God? this indicates that there are three parts of "God"...

 

[speed]

adding to this:

because the Son and Father are one God, the Father feels the Son's suffering, and shares the loss of the Son as a loss of oneself. it is a self sacrifice, God gives a part of himself for humanity.

speed: you say the "trinity" was a notion concieved circa Constantine... why then would Jesus call God his Father and refer to the Holy Spirit, when he also claims he is the Son of God and that there is only one God? this indicates that there are three parts of "God"...

SS: To clear this up, the trinity was decided upon over soundmasters Jesus as God view in the 4th century AD--and then there is also a gnostic view that Jesus was a Buddha like figure, bringing wisdom etc. Both the nontrinitarian view and the trinitarian view were debated and followed until the 4th century. The gospels that didnt make it into the New Testament Canon like the Gospel of St. Thomas, followed nontrinitarian views. Thus, SS, the bibles you are using (Matthew and Luke--I dont bleieve Mark mentions the holy ghost, but I could be very wrong) were selected in the 4th century because they followed the dogma and teachings of the ROman EMpire and its bureaucratic church.

 

[Kenneth R.]

oh no no, i have heard that all before. some would argue that Constantine never even cared about christianity, and that's probably true. he simply saw a winning side and backed it to stay in power at his end.

how could Jesus be the Son of God? he is not a mortal being, a human. he shared a human body, but not human life. thus he was supernatural, and it goes that there is but one God. so is he then a supernatural son of God? or, as i have said, one and the same?

 

[SoundMaster]

adding to this:

because the Son and Father are one God, the Father feels the Son's suffering, and shares the loss of the Son as a loss of oneself. it is a self sacrifice, God gives a part of himself for humanity.

Ultimately, I feel that thiis "mystery" is one of the keys to Christianty's failure as a viable option.

How, exactly, did the Son suffer? A few hours feeling human pain (although he was a God and, knowing the future, knew full well what the outcome would be)? Again, the supposed pain he would have felt wouldn't come near what a true human would feel? Sure, he may feel the physical pain, but certainly not the emotional pain or the uncertainty of what (may) lies beyond.