Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (79649)	5/23/2000 1:41:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I understand, of course. I am not sure, though, how advanced the sensibilities of the Romans were, what with gladiatorial contests and crucifixions and all that..... One should recall, of course, that Christ was supposed to be not merely someone innocent, but the Son of God, as interpreted by the creeds, "true God and true man", two natures united in one personality. As such, in a manner of speaking, God was allowing Himself to be crucified for our sins. The Divine nature being what it is, He could only do so united to a human nature, but, just the same, one way of looking at it is that God subjected Himself to the experience of deepest misery out of love for us. Modern people are often very bad in getting the idea of retributive justice. They think that punishment is a deterrent, or a way of getting people to rehabilitate. Actually, punishment is a way to restore the moral order, by finding an appropriate response to evil. It is, in its nature, a rebuke of the perpetrator. So, now, we have a fascinating idea: God takes upon Himself all sins, from the beginning of time to time's end, and acts as a proxy for the sinner, so that the demands of justice may be satisfied. Symbolically, how would one accomplish that? What would be awesome enough? How about putting God on the cross to suffer between two thieves? It may not work for you, but it has a certain poetic power, and anyone who has wished that all evil could be redressed, from the murder of Abel to the crematoria at Auschwitz to the latest school shooting, might find it appropriate that God should carry what is an almost impossible burden of guilt and sorrow.... On Original Sin: the idea of ancestral sin does sound kind of hokey, of course. And yet it is clear that we do have a moral weakness, that it is hard for people to control their impulses and passions, that we are sometimes at the mercy of our viscera and reptilian brain. Does that make us "inherently sinful"? It depends on one's standard. If we are supposed to be inherently noble ("made in the image of God"), then yes, we fall short, and are sinful pretty much from the start. If one takes a more relaxed attitude to human nature ("I'm only human"), then it is too harsh an indictment.......

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (79649)	5/23/2000 6:21:00 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

LRR, I'm not trying to start an argument here but, the death of Jesus was not in order to restore justice. According to Christian belief, a wall had been built between God and mankind because of the sin of Adam. This wall was an impediment to the understanding of salvation and, a rapport of man with God. God sent Jesus to Earth to live as a human in order to understand the human condition, and to die on the cross in order to break down that wall. Crucifixion was the most common form of the death sentence used by the Romans, and many before and after Jesus died by that method. So, for you to say that the Romans had some pretty advanced sensibilities." doesn't hold much water in this instance. ~H~