On Psalm 109 and Faith

[Alex]

Serious question:

Would you be willing to detail this sentence a bit more (per your faith and understanding, not asking you to speak for all)? I've not seen it before and it strikes me as a significant handicapping of god. So I assume I'm not understanding it correctly.

The reason the the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary was that God cannot be in the presence of what is determined to be sin.

[scaeagles]

Basic Christian doctrine states that man is separated from God by sin. God cannot be in the presence of sin, or rather sin (and the sinner) cannot be in the presence of God. This is why in the Old Testament, when priests would enter the area of the temple called the "holy of holies", they had to go through very specific and stringent purification rituals. I think (and i can't specifically recall) there is an account in the Old Testament somewhere of a priest entering the holy of holies and literally frying to a crisp. Anyway, the righteousness of God, being what it is, cannot be around sin for this reason. This is what the sacrifice of Jesus did - once and for all, a permanent ultimately pure sacrifice covered the sin of all and made it possible once again for man to be in the presence of God. Rather than extremely long purification rituals or daily animal sacrifices, this was the final sacrifice required.

Is that what you were looking for?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Basic Christian doctrine states that man is separated from God by sin. God cannot be in the presence of sin, or rather sin (and the sinner) cannot be in the presence of God. This is why in the Old Testament, when priests would enter the area of the temple called the "holy of holies", they had to go through very specific and stringent purification rituals. I think (and i can't specifically recall) there is an account in the Old Testament somewhere of a priest entering the holy of holies and literally frying to a crisp. Anyway, the righteousness of God, being what it is, cannot be around sin for this reason. This is what the sacrifice of Jesus did - once and for all, a permanent ultimately pure sacrifice covered the sin of all and made it possible once again for man to be in the presence of God. Rather than extremely long purification rituals or daily animal sacrifices, this was the final sacrifice required.

Is that what you were looking for?

Ok, I guess what is confusing to me is this: Is not the Christian god omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? If so, how it possible to not be in god's presence?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I really don't get this. If man is now without sin due to Jesus' sacrifice, then what are christians still worried about? Why feel remorse for sins?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I really don't get this. If man is now without sin due to Jesus' sacrifice, then what are christians still worried about? Why feel remorse for sins?

I think on this point it is more that we've been absolved (to some degree, it doesn't seem perfect since there's still a question for some faiths of what the status of an infant is) of original sin. We're still on the hook for our own sins but at least we're no longer screwed over by that tramp Eve and her wily seduction of Adam into sin.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I really don't get this. If man is now without sin due to Jesus' sacrifice, then what are christians still worried about? Why feel remorse for sins?

My pastors would have answered along these lines:
A Christian is not without sin, but considers his/her sins to be covered by the blood of Christ, so that when they are brought to the final judgement, God the father will not see that person's sin, but will only see the covering of Christ's perfection. In the earthly meantime, Christians expect that Jesus living within them will change their formal worldly nature into a Godly one, and thus, they will be more inclined to obey God's law and less inclined to fall into temptation. (All the Christians I know consider themselves still sinful and pray for help in being less so.)

So, at least in my evangelical past, acceptance of Christ as personal savior was a prerequisite for salvation (absolutely no one is good enough on their own) and once Jesus dwelt in one's heart, other life changes were to be expected - bringing the person closer to God via a direct relationship with Jesus.

Others can tell me if I have that right. I'm no longer at all on board, but I remember the words pretty good.

[scaeagles]

Not without sin - able to ask forgiveness without making sacrifices ourselves.

So in terms of personal worry....I don't have any personally as to my final desitination upon death. I believe the reason for outreach to non-Christians, at least for those who are not interested in controlling the lives of others, is that belief and acceptance of the sacrifice made by Jesus is a prerequisite to eternal life. It isn't automatic to everyone. Just to those who acknowledge it.

[mousepod]

As long as we're already in the Parking LoT...

wow. god sure seems like a petty creep, eh?

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by mousepod

As long as we're already in the Parking LoT...

wow. god sure seems like a petty creep, eh?

I'm afraid so. When I was still an evangelical, this really bothered me.

But then, I also spent years as a liberal Christian trying to pretend the awful things in the book were untrue but that the nice things were absolutely so. That didn't work out either.

Abandoning belief brought a sense of vast relief. (Yeah, so I had to shuck the afterlife. Small price to pay, actually.)

[scaeagles]

I would regard petty as being "wow, my creation sucks and they all deserve to be obliterated". I wouldn't regard what has been described as petty at all.

And Flippy, for the most part, that's about right.