Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 03-21-2003, 05:12 AM

Vinnie,

I think I would summarize the problem of PS as: where did the rules come from which constrain an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God to require punishment/atonement for sin? Why did God create in a situation where He is contrained by rules like this?

And I suppose the philosophical Christians who accept PS as true would say "it must be that this is inherent in the world - that it's impossible to create a world with humans that is otherwise". Or "this must be the best possible world; it must be that a world without these constraints would be worse".

I've read enough WL Craig to make an informed guess how those arguments would go...

In fact, a lot of the discussions that go on on this board are based on nontheists rejecting the possibility that this could be the best possible world an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could create.

And actually, it only has to be the best possible world if the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God is also good.

Anyway, can you direct me to your own preferred explanation of why Jesus died/had to die? Did Jesus have to die? Do you believe we benefitted from his death, in any way?

And, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to me, imo

. I'm just wondering how far your thinking has gone, regarding the meaning/purpose/benefits of Jesus death to us (if any).

Helen

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 05:36 AM

Read Meta's article that I linked to above. My thoughts are similar to those now.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling
And when you tell them that it is not God you are questioning, but their model of atonement, it seems to go straight over their heads. :banghead:

That is how it works with many people. For instance, when you tell yes the earth is billions of years old to them that you are saying the Bible is wrong and to say that the Bible is wrong "obviously" means you are saying God is wrong because he wrote it

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 05:54 AM

Wow. I finally got a "decent" response from someone on this (over at christianforums)! Me =

Of course, most of the points were not addressed. A few isolated ones were at least.

Vinnie

HelenM · 03-21-2003, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Read Meta's article that I linked to above. My thoughts are similar to those now.

Vinnie

Thanks - I'll look at that - and, my apologies for not noticed you'd already linked to it as a 'better' approach than PS.

Ok, my initial thought is - but his whole approach presupposes humans deserve to die i.e. original sin, doesn't it?

And you reject that, I think.

So, isn't that a little inconsistent of you, to support a view of salvation/atonement predicated on original sin?

Helen

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 06:38 AM

I don't remember Meta's view being predicated on original sin. If it is I would simply reformulate it so as to not include that. Of course, it would be very difficult for a person to argue effectively that God would not be just in punishing some or most or all sinners with death. But that is hardly the same thing as original sin.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

We are under the law of sin and death, we are under curse of the law (we sin, we die, we are not capable in our own human strength of being good enough to merit salvation). IN taking on the penalty of sin (while remaining sinless) Jesus died in our stead; not inthe mannar of a premative animal sacrafice (that is just a metaphor) but as one of us, so that through identification with us, we might identify with him and therefore, partake of his newness of life.

I just read the intro real fast from Meta. This could be original sin and it could not be. Many Christians might "uncritically" assume he means original sin or is using strictly universal language but Meta may very well not be using terms in such a manner. That could go either way by itself. I'll send meta a message and ask him though.

Anyways, this is from his model:

Quote:

This is why Jesus cries out on the cross "why have you forsaken me?" According to Moltmann this is an expression of Solidarity with all who feel abandoned by God.Jesus death in solidarity creates the grounds for forgiveness, since it is through his death that we express our solidarity, and through that, share in his life in union with Christ. Many verses seem to suggest a propitiatory view. But these are actually speaking of the affects of the solidarity. "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath thorugh him! For if when we were considered God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! What appears to be saying that the shedding of blood is what creates forgiveness is actually saying that the death in solidarity cretaes the grounds for reconciliation. IT says we were enemies then we were reconciled to him thorugh the death, his expression of solidarity changes the ground, when we express our solidarity and enter into the death we are giving up to God, we move from enemy to friend, and in that sense the shedding of blood, the death in solidarity, creates the conditions through which we can be and are forgiven. He goes on to talk about sharing in his life, which is participation, solidarity, unity.

Solidarity is what I like most about the model he is advocating. It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 06:49 AM

in page two Meta says this ""All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." Though by the same Biblical author, I see that as very distinct from teachings a la Romans 5:12. I do not think he accepts the doctrine of original sin or anything like the imputation of guilt but I could be wrong.

Vinnie

Bill Snedden · 03-21-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Which part of Tp's AofR?

It's in the first part, Chapter VIII, in about the last 5 paragraphs of that chapter. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thingitself. It is then no longer justice...

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay...in truth, there is no such thing as redemption;...it is fabulous; and...man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.

I never really thought about it before, but that last sentence, especially considering the whole of Paine's opus, seems to me to fit in quite nicely with the Solidarity theory!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Radorth · 03-21-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

it is fabulous;

Indeed it is.

And absolutely a brilliant solution to the contrary demands of justice, benevolence, and free will. And of course the skeptics are all over the logical map on this issue, taking a scripture here or there and ignoring all straightforward interpretations, claiming one day God can do anything, but denying the atonement is an acceptable alternative even to just punishment; saying one day God ought to have allowed Jesus to die much earlier for our sins, then asserting there is no justice in it, etc. No rational alternative has ever been suggested to me, at least not one without some physical intervention by God and the elimination of free will. (That will come in due time, at which time there will will be even more wailing and complaining).

Quote:

man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.

I don't know what this guy is talking about because our pre-Christian "standing" with our Maker has been as pretty much as incorrigible sinners according to God, (not to mention all our history books), and I find no consolation at all in that.

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2003, 05:12 AM	#31
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Vinnie, I think I would summarize the problem of PS as: where did the rules come from which constrain an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God to require punishment/atonement for sin? Why did God create in a situation where He is contrained by rules like this? And I suppose the philosophical Christians who accept PS as true would say "it must be that this is inherent in the world - that it's impossible to create a world with humans that is otherwise". Or "this must be the best possible world; it must be that a world without these constraints would be worse". I've read enough WL Craig to make an informed guess how those arguments would go... In fact, a lot of the discussions that go on on this board are based on nontheists rejecting the possibility that this could be the best possible world an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could create. And actually, it only has to be the best possible world if the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God is also good. Anyway, can you direct me to your own preferred explanation of why Jesus died/had to die? Did Jesus have to die? Do you believe we benefitted from his death, in any way? And, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to me, imo . I'm just wondering how far your thinking has gone, regarding the meaning/purpose/benefits of Jesus death to us (if any). Helen

03-21-2003, 05:36 AM	#32
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Read Meta's article that I linked to above. My thoughts are similar to those now. Vinnie

03-21-2003, 05:54 AM	#34
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Wow. I finally got a "decent" response from someone on this (over at christianforums)! Me = Of course, most of the points were not addressed. A few isolated ones were at least. Vinnie

03-21-2003, 06:38 AM	#36
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I don't remember Meta's view being predicated on original sin. If it is I would simply reformulate it so as to not include that. Of course, it would be very difficult for a person to argue effectively that God would not be just in punishing some or most or all sinners with death. But that is hardly the same thing as original sin. Vinnie

03-21-2003, 06:49 AM	#38
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	in page two Meta says this ""All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." Though by the same Biblical author, I see that as very distinct from teachings a la Romans 5:12. I do not think he accepts the doctrine of original sin or anything like the imputation of guilt but I could be wrong. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.