Freethought & Rationalism Archive

worldling · 03-21-2003, 09:31 AM

So, Radorth's resonse to a demonstration of the absurdity of the penal atonement model is to make the assertion that it is, in fact, "absolutely brilliant". Then he goes on to an ad hominem attack on skeptics in general.

How convincing is that?

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling
So, Radorth's resonse to a demonstration of the absurdity of the penal atonement model is to make the assertion that it is, in fact, "absolutely brilliant". Then he goes on to an ad hominem attack on skeptics in general.

How convincing is that?

Not very. I've given up on discussing this with him for the time being. I actually got a small critique here for those interested. Placid used the old 'this book refutes you' argument. Sadly that is the best public response I've gotten so far. I'll take what I can get though

Vinnie

HelenM · 03-21-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

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

Vinnie

But - why did Jesus have to die so we could have 'solidarity' with God?

I mean, I don't have to go through your experiences to have a relationship with you, to not consider you my enemy. (In what Meta wrote he says in one place that we were God's enemies) Why is this the only way for an omnipotent, omniscient God to make it possible for God and humans to relate as friends, not enemies?

It seems to me that Meta's approach is no closer to resolving the 'why' question of, why was Jesus' suffering and death the only way to make it possible for humans and God to be reconciled? Furthermore, why were they estranged in the first place?

Helen

Bill Snedden · 03-21-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Indeed it is.

Hehehe...how ironic. Paine meant "fabulous" in its original meaning: "like a fable." He was criticizing it as unbelievable on its face. How odd that you should agree, hmmm?

Oh, wait...you probably realized that (hence your smiley)...

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
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.

Well, of course Paine didn't believe all that gobbledygook.

His view of Man's relationship to God was much different than your own. Which is precisely why I thought that, considering all his writings, his statement seemed very much in line with the Solidarity Theory of Atonement.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Why is this the only way for an omnipotent, omniscient God to make it possible for God and humans to relate as friends, not enemies?

Through personal dialogues with Meta he never said it was NECESSARY for God to do this. It was "good" for God to create solidarity in this manner, but not NECESSARY. Big difference

So the answer is that this is not the only way for an omnipotent, omniscient God to create solidarity. But if said omnipotent-omniscient God did create solidarity in this manner we surely can say it was "good" to do so, no?

Further, this may not be the only means of solidarity (I don't think it is). I suspect Meta would say that it is the "best" way at getting there but not the "only" way.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Furthermore, why were they estranged in the first place?

naturally, sin. You don't need original sin to point out the human problematic. The wounds of existence suffice. See these two images of salvation I put together (2 of nine--all will be up soon on my site):

Quote:

Nine Biblical Images of Salvation

Bondage and Liberation

Marcus Borg: "Salvation as liberation goes back to the foundational narrative of the Bible, the exodus story of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt. Bondage as an image of the human predicament in this story includes economic and political oppression: the Hebrews were literally slaves under the Lordship of Pharaoh. The image of our condition as bondage also has psychological and spiritual meanings in the Bible. For Paul . . . and the New Testament, we are in bondage to "the powers." "The powers" are cultural, spiritual, and psychological powers operating both within us and outside us. The powers include the domination system and the spirit of the age, and they produce in us not only bondage but a sense of powerlessness. Life under the powers is dominated existence.

What does bondage suggest as an image of the human condition? We are in bondage to many things. Our bondage can be the result of things that happen to us, or we can fall into it through our own acts. Cultural messages are deeply ingrained within us, as are belief systems that radically shape the way we see and live. People continue to be in bondage to economic and political systems--both the victims of such systems as well as those who benefit from them (though in quite different ways). We can be in bondage to wounds stemming from childhood. We are addicted to many things. We typically are in bondage to preoccupation with ourselves and our well-being. The list can grow very long.

Liberation from bondage is thus one of the central meanings of salvation. The story of the Exodus is a story about all of us and our need to be liberated from what holds us in bondage. Liberation is a central theme in the story of Jesus. According to Luke, Jesus' mission (then and now) is "to proclaim release to the captives, and to let the oppressed go free." The language of liberation also resounds in the writings of Paul: "For freedom Christ has set us free . . . therefore, do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." For Paul, God in Christ has defeated the powers, exposing and dethroning the other Lords of our lives." [The God We never Knew Pp. 158-9]

The idea of bondage and liberation ties in directly with the ransom theory. The ransom theory says that Jesus' life was a ransom paid for the sake of our salvation. In many circles this view has been scorned and largely rejected as naive. A ransom is something paid to a captor for the release of something or someone. In this case it is asked to whom did God have to pay or simply find it good to pay a ransom for us? To himself? God holds us captive? Surely that is false. To those who believe he is a literal being, what about a ransom paid to Satan? Does the enemy hold us captive and was Jesus' death a ransom allowing us to be freed from him? This cannot be seriously maintained either. The notion that God would need to or even should find it good to pay anything to Satan for our salvation is ludicrous and quite simply, bad theology. What about sin? Surely we were captives to sin before being liberated? As Richard Purtill wrote, "To say we were captives of "sin" is good New Testament language, but sin is not a personal agent who can be given a reason to release us." The objection against the the ransom theory then, is that there is no one to whom God could have paid a ransom to.

Unfortunately, this view is not easily dismissed by Christians who hold to the authority of scripture. In Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 Jesus is the "Son of Man who did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many". As Mentioned by Borg, in Luke's inaugural address (4:18-19) Jesus is sent to "proclaim freedom for the prisoners" and to"release the oppressed." In 1 Timothy 2:6 Jesus is the mediator between God and man who "who gave himself as a ransom for all men". Hebrews 9:15, in the terms of sacrificial covenant, also says that Jesus "died as a ransom to set people free." As we saw above in Marcus Borg's discussion, the idea of bondage and liberation abounds in Biblical literature. We also see that the ransom theory has wide scriptural support. So the question remains? Who has us captive? To whom are we prisoners of?

One possible answer is actually right under our noses and was implicitly stated by Borg. Who has us in captivity? We do! We are our own captors and Jesus' death was a ransom which frees us from ourselves. We hold ourselves captive and God, through Jesus' death on the Cross, paid a ransom to us so that we might be released from ourselves. He wanted to liberate us from our own enslavement to sin and to reconcile us to himself. That is why Paul proclaims in Romans 5:8 that "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Through Jesus' sacrificial death God tells us that he loves us and by telling us that He loves us, He gives us good reason to release ourselves from captivity.

Estrangement and Reconciliation

Another Biblical image of salvation involves the concept of "exile". To be in exile to to be separated from something to which you belong. A husband who did things he regrets and finds himself sleeping out on the couch is in a state of exile. The man sleeping on the couch belongs next to his wife but instead he is in a place of grief and weeping. A place where he does not not feel at home because quite simply, he is not at home. Being in a state of exile gives one the feeling that they don't belong and it can alienate them. The notion of exile is depicted very well in verses 1 through 4 of Psalm 137

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?

The exiles were not at home (Jerusalem). They were in a foreign land where they wept and remembered Zion. Exile is also one of the themes of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. They were expelled from the Garden of Eden and forced to live outside of the home they were intended to live in. We are in the same boat as we all live outside the manifest presence of God, east of Eden. Quite simply, we are estranged from God. Our relationship is not what it should be and we need to be reconciled. Our state of exile is something that happens to us through the activity of outside personal free agents and it is mainly something that we inflict upon ourselves. Our rebellion leads to this state of exile and our estrangement from God can be very strong. So strong that many people are not even explicitly aware of the fact that they are "sleeping on the couch" rather than where they belong. This goes to show us how deep the wounds of existence actually are. The man sleeping on the couch may get so used to it that the fact of his "exile" becomes numbed and "forgotten".

"Salvation as reconciliation is the experience of being reconnected to God. It involves the overcoming of our sense of separation from the one to whom we belong. It is to return to Eden, symbolically the place of God's presence, to "paradise restored." It is homecoming, In the exile story, the process involves a journey of return to "the holy land," which (like Eden) is the place of God's presence. Indeed, this is one of the central meanings of "repentance" in the Bible: to repent means to return from exile to God. But this journey is not simply something that we do or accomplish, for God invites, encourages, and empowers the return." (Borg, ibid, p. 160)

Reconciliation is a common Biblical theme. See Col. 1:20-22, Eph. 2:16, Romans 5:10 and 2 Cor. 5:17-20 which specifically tells us that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Vinnie

Radorth · 03-21-2003, 07:50 PM

Quote:

How convincing is that?

I don't suppose you noticed any ad hom, bad analogies, straw men and leaps of logic in Vinnie's work. I'd retitle it "Two Problems with PS, Five Rants, and Three Repetitions of the Same Arguments, with Selected Scriptures."

I'm so glad Durant has fallen from favor. He was much too convincing.

Rad

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 08:14 PM

Feel free to do more than assert that my paper contains ad hominem arguments, bad analogies, straw man arguments and leaps of logic. Hand waving it away as false is one thing. Demonstrating it as such is another. You are free to your opinion (the former) but I challenge you to demonstrate the veracity of your comments (the latter).

I am not interested in rhetorical jousting with you. If you have something substantial to say or an actual point of contention with something I wrote then state it openly and we can discuss it. If you have nothing worthwhile to say why not be a good Christian and put a disclaimer in the beginning of your post?

"Warning. Nothing substantial inside. Do not read if you are seeking reasonable and intelligent discussion."

If you do that you will be obeying this rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Vinnie

Radorth · 03-21-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

So, Radorth's resonse to a demonstration of the absurdity of the penal atonement model

I take it we're talking about the "demonstration" of Paine's since Vinnie didn't demonstrate much more than an ability to copy really bad analogies and give credit to those he copied.

As for Paine, a great writer second only to Ingersoll in making hyperbole sound like reasoned arguments:

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 thing itself. It is then no longer justice...

Eh? So if I offer to pay someone's traffic fine because they are poor and destitute, and seem genuinely remorseful, I'm committing an injustice. Right? It's exactly the same thing. So Paine is just pretending to reason here, but is really just pedaling his anti-religion- of-any-kind-except-mine propaganda.

Quote:

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

Yeah? So what?

Well my single reflection showed PS works fine, and we do it ourselves all the time, especially parents I suppose.

Besides that God DID create the world, and felt he had some responsibility to save it. You can call PS unjust all you want, but the simple fact is A PERSON SOMEWHERE HAS TO SUFFER LOSS FOR THERE TO BE AN INJUSTICE.

Nobody lost anything they now care about, therefore there was no injustice.

Nice try though fellas. Try using simple logic next time.

Rad

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

don't suppose you noticed any ad hom, bad analogies, straw men and leaps of logic in Vinnie's work. I'd retitle it "Two Problems with PS, Five Rants, and Three Repetitions of the Same Arguments, with Selected Scriptures."

A Chart To help you out.

Of all my ten reasons please put each one into every cateogry that apllies to it (for example if argument 3 was a rant and a stram man argument put 3 in both categtories:

Decoding Vinnie's paper

Ad hominem arguments:

Rants:

Repetitions:

Bad Analogies:

Leaps of Logic:

Straw man arguments:

Actual Arguements (which 2?):

Feel free to fill out the survey. Then we can get into why said arguments in my paper fall into such categories.

Vinnie

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

03-21-2003, 09:31 AM	#41
worldling Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: UK Posts: 156	So, Radorth's resonse to a demonstration of the absurdity of the penal atonement model is to make the assertion that it is, in fact, "absolutely brilliant". Then he goes on to an ad hominem attack on skeptics in general. How convincing is that?

03-21-2003, 08:14 PM	#48
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Feel free to do more than assert that my paper contains ad hominem arguments, bad analogies, straw man arguments and leaps of logic. Hand waving it away as false is one thing. Demonstrating it as such is another. You are free to your opinion (the former) but I challenge you to demonstrate the veracity of your comments (the latter). I am not interested in rhetorical jousting with you. If you have something substantial to say or an actual point of contention with something I wrote then state it openly and we can discuss it. If you have nothing worthwhile to say why not be a good Christian and put a disclaimer in the beginning of your post? "Warning. Nothing substantial inside. Do not read if you are seeking reasonable and intelligent discussion." If you do that you will be obeying this rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.