tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post116007357202723218..comments2024-02-05T05:00:19.099-07:00Comments on Soylent Green . . .: Being "Christian"Sharad Yadavhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-82557761879446785622007-03-19T11:24:00.000-06:002007-03-19T11:24:00.000-06:00Hey evilcy. I'm not sure it makes very much sense...Hey evilcy. I'm not sure it makes very much sense to say that "religion" in general can be anything. There are a lot of different ways of looking at the world, and Islam is just as different from Christianity as atheism is - so to lump together "religion" and call it "the problem with the world" isn't very sensible, I think. <BR/><BR/>Even though it's rather fashionable to point it out, I feel like I should note the amount of war, pain and death brought on by atheistic communism in the 20th C. Stalin's atheism didn't lead to peace, justice and thriving civilization. <BR/><BR/>As for pride and lust, I see your point. But Christianity doesn't condemn the rightful satisfaction a person takes in their work and accomplishments. Neither does it assign the word "lust" to the joy taken in God's creation (like food, wine, sex, etc.). It views such things as gifts from a gracious God to be enjoyed. The concept of lust is the idea that such gifts have inherent limitations, and used outside of those limitations they don't bring joy (as God intended) but destruction.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1160415962337621132006-10-09T11:46:00.000-06:002006-10-09T11:46:00.000-06:00Sameer,I'm not sure that the atonement was underst...Sameer,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that the atonement was understood in the crass "world is flat" metaphysical sense you mentioned - or at the very least that wasn't the central idea. I think the main motif of sacrifice is substitution, or the concept of exchange - the life of one thing for another, in this case, the Shepherd for the sheep, the godly for the ungodly. The connection between substitution and atonement is what makes the cleansing and purity dimensions less opaque because it interprets the meaning of those words. Purity and cleanness are things untouched by the ravages of sin and death (as evidenced by all of the purity laws in the OT, I believe). Atonement cleanses from sin and death by absorbing the judgment in place of the impure thing. As for why God counts such acts as efficacious, I don't know - but I do know that the idea of substitution, and one thing taking the consequences of another's actions for that person's benefit, is a deeply understood feature of human existence. <BR/><BR/>The basic components that have to be accepted for substitution and atonement to work include the necessity of judgment (its unavoidability, however it is determined). It's also important to keep the relational dimension in mind here - that is, God's judgment isn't just an abstract law-like necessity but a (just) result of His hatred of sin. Substitution isn't just the balancing of a cosmic scale, it's the choice of the One who desires to make things right, at His own cost. In that sense, "why THIS and why not THAT" sorts of questions may not be helpful.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1160079698005024382006-10-05T14:21:00.000-06:002006-10-05T14:21:00.000-06:00I totally agree. Especially with the ending remark...I totally agree. Especially with the ending remarks on the church. It's not a crushing standard that's meant to turn us off but yet we still try, rather it's to live the "right way," the way life lived in fellowship with God is meant to be lived. I'll be the first to admit that it's very easy for me to get discouraged and start being legalistic and self righteous and feeling like God's picking on me with his rules when, in fact, it's his grace that he's calling me to and it's utterly ridiculous for me to be fighting against God's righteous ways that are meant to fill us with joy! The Bible talks about our joy being complete, and grace and peace, and giving our burdens to the Lord; being in the church is meant to <I>free</I> us from these things <I>not</I> cause them; the world apart from God causes them, and apart from giving our burdens to the Lord, and abiding in him, then "church" will be a burden because what we're calling "church" isn't actually church. Church is a people who have been saved by God and <I>freed</I> from the <I>bondage</I> of the things that cause us suffering and burdensom. It's misses the mark so much to think that church is a burden or hassle, because it only is when you're following the world! Because it gets in your way of filling your own desires. The biblical church is meant to <I>free</I> us from that in a way that we <I>need</I> and <I>want</I> the church. What I often struggle with is that although I know the happiness of this I often am one to be resistant to the church, to Christ, because I feel this "obligation" to comform and follow and be in agreement with the rest of the world; this "obligation" often springs from my sincerety to not want to be "offensive" to the rest of the world, as if by being offensive I must be in the wrong when, in fact, this simply is not true. And I think it's when we think of church this way that we have no hesitation or resistance or uneasiness to share the gospel with people, as not to "interfere", but rather we should seek joyously to tell them their condition that <I>causes</I> all the problems in their life and that Christ is <I>freedom</I> from the effects of sin. Thanks Sharad for posting this. It really brings my heart to recognize and rethink the way I too often view church and the world.Weswisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227390586817498508noreply@blogger.com