- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DoubtingTom wrote:
Just a thought, and I haven’t flushed this out yet.But what if God isn’t all powerful? What if there are certain laws he must abide by in his sphere and that includes that for some reason he can’t just forgive everyone or make up a system by which somehow everyone gets to return to him. But by following laws he must abide by, the Savior and the atonement become a means by which he can accomplish his purposes without violating inviolatable laws that he doesn’t have the power to violate?…Personally I don’t connect to this idea nor think it the most likely. But the idea gave me pause as an interesting theological thought.
This is sort of how the Church tries to explain the supposed need for the atonement, even though they don’t word it as God having limitations as far as what he can and can’t do there is the whole explanation in the Book of Mormon to the effect that, “God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:13) without some kind of law demanding punishment for sins because without this mercy would “rob justice.” I understand the idea that it doesn’t really seem fair for God to just forgive everyone like some kind of get out of jail free card but at the same time I just don’t see how having someone that didn’t have anything to do with whatever “sins” people have committed suffer and die is any kind of justice whatsoever, to me it sounds like quite the opposite namely one of the worst possible examples of injustice imaginable if we step back and really look at it without buying into some of the hand-waving explanations and claims that God said so.
If justice is so essential then why not just punish everyone individually in proportion to what they themselves have actually done wrong and be done with it rather than punishing someone that doesn’t really deserve it at all? And on top of that, it seems like many average people nowadays aren’t really doing anything all that bad to begin with that looks like it should require some magical intercession to pay for but at best it looks like all that should be required to “pay” for some of this would simply be some kind of slap on the wrist that they could easily bear themselves. It’s almost like the supposed problem and the cure both came from the same source (traditional religious teachings) and both of them could easily be mostly if not entirely imaginary for all we really know. But I have stopped trying to make sense of this idea anymore, at this point I see it as just another traditional teaching we have inherited from previous generations because of whatever scriptures in the BoM, Bible, etc. similar to “no death before the fall”, a global flood, the tower of Babel, God cursing people with a dark skin, etc. that could turn out to be entirely human in origin rather than something inspired or revealed directly by God.
There’s a lot of stuff we just don’t talk about a) How Mary was impregnated
b) Where God came from — if he was a man and progressed, who was his God?
c) If God HAD to provide an atonement to satisfy justice and mercy, or cease to be God, then who is pulling the big strings above? It’s not our God….
We can’t talk about that. So, the shelf gets heavier…
Or you can just be agnostic about it all and keep going forward, happy.
SilentDawning wrote:
Or you can just be agnostic about it all and keep going forward, happy.
There is truth to this. I’m much more at peace with thinking of the lessons and teachings of Jesus as an inspiration to live better, and to find the kingdom of God inside ourselves (which I believe was a core of his message). I think it was an incredibly powerful message during a time of total Roman oprression, about which the common man had no power to overcome that. Instead, Jesus taught the kingdom of God is inside us, here and now. He taught to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile, essentially taking that power back from the oppressive empire and making it an internal power.
That message still resonates today, as well as the messages of love and forgiveness. And I’m more at peace with those messages than trying to do mental gymnastics to make abstracts like the need for an infinite atonement make sense to me.
So I, like SD, am somewhat agnostic to those abstract ideas, and instead try to take inspiration from the messages that resonate.
I’m with SamBee, even if in reality the life of Jesus Christ was more complicated than that, as history normally is. I say yes. Yes. DoubtingTom wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
Or you can just be agnostic about it all and keep going forward, happy.
There is truth to this. I’m much more at peace with thinking of the lessons and teachings of Jesus as an inspiration to live better, and to find the kingdom of God inside ourselves (which I believe was a core of his message). I think it was an incredibly powerful message during a time of total Roman oppression, about which the common man had no power to overcome that. Instead, Jesus taught the kingdom of God is inside us, here and now. He taught to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile, essentially taking that power back from the oppressive empire and making it an internal power.
That message still resonates today, as well as the messages of love and forgiveness. And I’m more at peace with those messages than trying to do mental gymnastics to make abstracts like the need for an infinite atonement make sense to me.
This describes very well what I think. Thanks for spelling it out so precisely.
I think the probability of a literal Christ is extremely low, but not zero, so I suppose I’m technically agnostic as well. Though mathematically speaking zero-probability events are possible, so I guess I could call myself agnostic even if I actually thought the probability was zero…
(Tangentially, I’ve never thought of the Church as being like a Roman oppressor before. In my mind, it’s been playing the part of the Pharisees lately. It bears thinking about – though on another thread if I make my thoughts public.)
I always have, and continue to choose to believe in Christ as a literal Christ. I have enjoyed reading others’ posts on this thread. Thanks!
I see Christ as the way, the truth and the life. Eternal life comes through Him and “at-one-ment.” On the other hand I think we lose a whole lot of the goodness religion can offer if we get too stuck on literal interpretations. It may even be good exercise to try on occasion to deny ourselves of the literal “fix” that we may be addicted to.
I see the pharisees as too stuck on literalness, and the resulting distaste of their condition by Christ.
Yes. Minyan Man wrote:
I say yes.
I say “yes,” too. I’m kind of surprised at how many here say “no.”
Even after having a faith transition, I can still say YES! Well Jesus was an actual person. And he’s of exemplary character. If there is a need for a Savior, it would be him. I say its possible but not probable. I also have enjoyed reading all the different takes on this . More probable that Jesus existed lived a great life that can be used as an example for us and in the bible he was embellished to be larger than life ! So I guess for me I believe until I find definitive proof otherwise !! To paraphrase my earlier comment, I love the concept of a savior/redeemer/messiah/Son of God, but I can’t say I believe in a specific view of the concept, whether literal, symbolic, or something else. It simply was so long ago that I can’t be certain. Therefore, my view is based exclusively on faith. I hope for it and have only the “evidence of things not seen (personally)” provided by others – so I can say I have faith but simply am not certain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.