worldling

Hmm. Yes, I suppose that would work if your Christian Marine was the one who threw the grenade at his friends in the first place, as punishment for offending him, then jumped on it himself. Good one, Radorth!

That's the point. Give us a good analogy to work with. Don't say "the Bible", because that's not an analogy. Your edited marine one is pretty good though.

Amos

The problem with discarding the popular understanding of Jesus' death on the cross is that it removes the entire purpose of religion. That is both good and bad, good for Catholics because they always were told to pick up their cross and follow the footsteps of Jesus, and it is bad for protestants because their salvation depends on it.

Vinnie

The popular understanding is incorrect. If the "entire" purpose of religion is based uppn the popular understanding of atonement theology then goodbye to religion. Needless to say, I do not think religion is predicated on the naive form of penal substitution that I critiqued.

Vinnie

Amos

Let me qualify that and say that the common protestant understanding is incorrect. My reason for this is that religion for protestants cannot 'end' until they die and therefore the benefit of salvation is not part of life. If you would now argue that their social norms are good I would say that they are not the purpose of religion because we can, and do, invent better ones without the concept heaven and hell.

The purpose of religion is to achieve heaven on earth and this is the aim of Catholicism, which is therefore and -ism that has Christian-ity as and end in itself. The condition of being wherein we are Christian is meant to be post meno-pauze (meno is "I remain" as in eternal) and this is preceded by a 'crisis moment' that will either bring happiness (comedy) or sadness (tragedy) --or there was no crisis moment.

To increase the tension of this crisis moment the concept sin was created and so sin is just a human invention to bring about eternal life during meno pauze which then, obviously, would be the end of religion. This crisis moment is needed for the transformation between the Yang and Yin period of life.

The rest is all decoration to reinforce the stream of conscious against which sin must be made known. So therefore the protestant religions miss the mark as a means to the end.

You migth now argue that Catholic churches don't seem to have much success to which I would respond that the last time when the Church was in charge of its own destiny it was very successful. This period ended with the reformation first of Europe and later of Russia.

Radorth

Re: Worldling

I did, but you chose to twist to your own devices. You gave me the impression you were being sincere, but obviously you weren't.

Am I naive or what?

Rad

Vinnie

Holding to a naive view does not necessarily make one naive.

I called a view naive, not any person. But if a person holds to a large number of naive views I would justifiably call them naive. Though I am convinced that I prblably hold to some naive views myself.

Vinne

Radorth

Oops

If you read my comment in context, I'm sure you'll see it had nothing to do with yours. I was talking to Worldling BTW.

Rad

worldling

Rad, I was being sincere. And I did not twist your analogy; I merely expanded it to fit more accurately your model of the atonement.

Why is it, do you think, that when confronted of the stark absurdity of their beliefs, the only reply these Penal Substituionists can give seldom amounts to anything more than a petulant whine?

(I know. I'm just wondering if you do)

Vinnie

Maybe because the presence of God in their lives is very strong and and they equate an attack on penal substitituion with an atttack on their faith. But you are correct. There isn't much that can be said in defense of penal substitution. They can isolate a few passages which seeem to support penal substitution while ignoring other ones. Basically they can "proof-text hunt" the Bible but that is it. Aside from 'proof-text hunting' and saying you can't question God (e.g. when you point out the overly obvious moral difficulties with the imputation of guilt) there is nothing else that can be done. The next step in the line is "rethinking penal substitution" which several exegets have done. They modify substantially the model that I critiqued to make substitutionary atonement more feasible. Some just won't get that...

Vinnie

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: