The Logic of Atonement, answering Bob Seidensticker
Someone put up a link to a blog piece I will respond to.I almost didn't bother with this because it's very typical kind of mocking BS objection that one sees too often from atheists on the net. This one is by a genius who has the mind of a 10 year old. He;s written "10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense/"[1]These are not thoughtful, they are the same two objections worded 10 different ways.Still I feel there may be some people who need to know there are answers to these and that they are not difficult.
The genus's attitude turned me off from first paragraph:
I’m afraid that the crucifixion story doesn’t strike me as that big a deal.
The Christian will say that death by crucifixion was a horrible, humiliating way to die. That the death of Jesus was a tremendous sacrifice, more noble and selfless than a person sacrificing himself for the benefit of a butterfly. And isn’t it worth praising something that gets us into heaven?
The basis of reality, the foundation of the good the maker of all things, came into history as a man and gave his life for me,no big deal. The ingrate's attitude can be summed up in the words of the old cliche "what's he done for me lately?", Sure he whet though Crucifixion for me but what's he done for me lately?
The 10 points:
1. Sure death sucks, but why single out this one? Lots of people die. In fact, lots died from crucifixion. The death of one man doesn’t make all the others insignificant. Was Jesus not a man but actually a god? If so, that has yet to be shown.It’s not like this death is dramatically worse than death today. Crucifixion may no longer be a worry, but cancer is. Six hours of agony on the cross is pretty bad, but so is six months of agony from cancer.
Answer:
He fallaciously understands atonement to work by hierarchy of pain ,It's not redemption because it was more painful than any other death, It's more a mater of who died and why not how much it hurt.
2. What about that whole hell thing? An eternity of torment for even a single person makes Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison, and it counts for nothing when you consider the billions that are apparently going to hell.
Answer:
He speaks of "Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison," he's still working under the fallacious assumption that atonement works by out suffering everyone. Pain is not the mechanism of redemption.see my essay, [2]
3. Jesus didn’t even die. The absurdity of the story, of course, is the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.
Answer:
How does this genius figure he didn't die? Does he really mean he didn't stay dead? He assumes if he didn't stay dead it wasn't really a sacrifice? Unless he himself has died before I don't think he is in a position to know. I think we are well within a reasonable assumption to think dying was a sacrifice even if was raised. In the final analysis,however,it doesn't matter what we think or what that child thinks but only what God does.If God says that Jesus death is proper basis for atonement even if he did raise, then it is,period,end of problem.
Now if he means that it's not recorded in the Bile that he died,that's just plain wrong:
Mark 15 ''37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
Matthew 27: "50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit."
Luke: 23:46: "“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19: "30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
4. Taking on the sin vs. removal of sin aren’t symmetric. We didn’t do anything to get original sin. We just inherited it from Adam. So why do we have to do anything to get the redemption? If God demands a sacrifice, he got it. That’s enough. Why the requirement to believe to access the solution?Answer:
Each individual is a free moral agent, each one of us chooses to sin/ It's part of our nature but our will is free we chose to give in to it. That is not an issue with the atonement or the cross but with the need for it. Sin nature is not guilt it's just propensity. The difference in sin nature and sin is like the difference in having musical talent and actually playing an instrument,
5. The reason behind the sacrifice—mankind’s original sin—makes no sense. Why blame Adam for a moral lapse that he couldn’t even understand? Remember that he hadn’t yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so who could blame him when he made a moral mistake?And how can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn’t do? That’s not justice, and the Bible agrees:Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16)
Answer
God could blame Adam because he told him not to eat it he knew not to do that. That is not the same. Not knowing they were naked is not the same as knowing they had sinned. It's an extension of the issue. The difference in knowing the rule and knowing the experience of guilt. They had not experienced guilt but the did know the rule.
Don't forget we don't inherit guilt we only inherit propensity to sin. I am pretty sure that Adam bringing sin into human nature is a metaphor for the inherent nature of corporeal consciousnesses as the origin of sin nature.
God could blame Adam because he told him not to eat it he knew not to do that. That is not the same. Not knowing they were naked is not the same as knowing they had sinned. It's an extension of the issue. The difference in knowing the rule and knowing the experience of guilt. They had not experienced guilt but the did know the rule.
Don't forget we don't inherit guilt we only inherit propensity to sin. I am pretty sure that Adam bringing sin into human nature is a metaphor for the inherent nature of corporeal consciousnesses as the origin of sin nature.
6. Jesus made a sacrifice—big deal. Jesus is perfect, so his doing something noble is like water flowing downhill. It’s unremarkable since he’s only acting out his nature. What else would you expect from a perfect being?But imagine if I sacrificed myself for someone. In the right circumstance, I’d risk my life for a stranger—or at least I hope I would. That kind of sacrifice is very different. A selfish, imperfect man acting against his nature to make the ultimate unselfish sacrifice is far more remarkable than a perfect being acting according to his nature, and yet people make sacrifices for others all the time. So why single out the actions of Jesus? Aren’t everyday noble actions by ordinary people more remarkable and laudable?
Answer:
This is the same as the opening paragraph, He only has two arguments but re words them to make it look like he has 10. This argument is self defeating. Think about it. To dismiss this beautiful, loving,magnanimous,gracious gesture by the basis of all reality the essence of the good, and dismiss it with a cavalier "no big deal " tells me "hey my mind is that of a ten year old. Im not capable of any profound thoughts."
He throws in the idea that it's not a sacrifice because he's God. They always overlook the doctrine of Christ. Jesus had two natures, one was human,It was a sacrifice,he had same trepidation of any man. Behind his argument is the assumption that redemption works by suffering, The suffering is not he mechanism that makes forgiveness, Suffering is the statement of solidarity. It is the condition of solidarity that makes forgiveness.
7. What is left for God to forgive? The Jesus story says that we’ve sinned against God (a debt). Let’s look at two resolutions to this debt.(1) God could forgive the debt of sin. You and I are asked to forgive wrongs done against us, so why can’t God? Some Christians say that to forgive would violate God’s sense of justice, but when one person forgives another’s debt, there’s no violation of justice. For unspecified reasons, God doesn’t like this route.
And that leaves (2) where Jesus pays for our sin. But we need to pick 1 or 2, not both. If Jesus paid the debt, there’s no need for God’s forgiveness. There’s no longer anything for God to forgive, since there’s no outstanding debt.Here’s an everyday example: when I pay off my mortgage, the bank doesn’t in addition forgive my debt. There’s no longer a debt to forgive! Why imagine that God must forgive us after he’s already gotten his payment?
Answer:
God does forgive. Notice how he seems to be talking like God could just forgive people with requiring that they repent or be sorry for wrong,What would be the point of that? That's saying you are going to forgive even when they are not sorry and they intend to hurt you again. He wants amnesty not forgiveness. Forgiveness by definition rewires that one be sorry for doing wrong which means one accept having done wrong, He just wants carte blanch to do whatever he wants.
The atonement is a statement of God's solidarity with us. When we accept it we enter into solidarity with God. It's not a baron it's not like you have to do this to earn forgiveness. By entering into a relationship of solidarity with God the ground for forgiveness is created, it's an act of repentance.
Answer:
This is a perfect example of why I say this guy has the mentality of a 10 year old. His standard for being remarkable is physical power, betting,conquering defeating. Who cares about mythology? But comparing the realty of Jesus to mythology Jesus is totally remarkable. Nowhere in myth does a god forgive anyone for simple repenting. Of course the genus is not concerned with being forgiven or with truth or with what's really remarkable.
God does forgive. Notice how he seems to be talking like God could just forgive people with requiring that they repent or be sorry for wrong,What would be the point of that? That's saying you are going to forgive even when they are not sorry and they intend to hurt you again. He wants amnesty not forgiveness. Forgiveness by definition rewires that one be sorry for doing wrong which means one accept having done wrong, He just wants carte blanch to do whatever he wants.
The atonement is a statement of God's solidarity with us. When we accept it we enter into solidarity with God. It's not a baron it's not like you have to do this to earn forgiveness. By entering into a relationship of solidarity with God the ground for forgiveness is created, it's an act of repentance.
8. The Jesus story isn’t even remarkable within mythology. Jesus’s sacrifice was small compared to the Greek god Prometheus, who stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. Zeus discovered the crime and punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock so that a vulture could eat his liver. Each night, his liver grew back and the next day the vulture would return, day after agonizing day. The gospel story, where Jesus is crucified once and then pops back into existence several days later, is unimpressive by comparison.
Answer:
This is a perfect example of why I say this guy has the mentality of a 10 year old. His standard for being remarkable is physical power, betting,conquering defeating. Who cares about mythology? But comparing the realty of Jesus to mythology Jesus is totally remarkable. Nowhere in myth does a god forgive anyone for simple repenting. Of course the genus is not concerned with being forgiven or with truth or with what's really remarkable.
9. The Bible itself rejects God’s savage “justice.” This is the 21st century. Must Iron Age customs persist so that we need a human sacrifice? If God loves us deeply and he wants to forgive us, couldn’t he just … forgive us? That’s how we do it, and that’s the lesson we get from the parable of the Prodigal Son where the father forgives the son even after being wronged by him. If that’s the standard of mercy, why can’t God follow it? Since God is so much greater a being than a human, wouldn’t he be that much more understanding and willing to forgive?If we were to twist the Prodigal Son parable to match the crucifixion story, the father might demand that the innocent son be flogged to pay for the crime of the prodigal son. Where’s the logic in that?
Answer:
The genius misses the point. Jesus told that story he knew what he was telling, our little atheist genus doe not.The father did not tell the son 'yes come back and sin all you want,' The son did not come back saying "I won I will do whatever I want now," The son said "I screwed up I will do it your way, "'The father said welcome back, but clearly not come on back and sin all you want, The boy expressed repentance. God enters history as a man and suffers a cruel fate with criminals so we can see his willingness to come to our aid he spits in Christ's face and mocks the aid God
offers and uses God;s own mercy as the standard, The God hater doesn't want to see the beautify in Gods mercy.
God is not hung up with formalities. Forgiveness for sin is not that hide-bound. Why is this guy and most of the God hater club so hung up with atonement? Why is the cross such a stumbling bloc? I really wonder if this guy would really be sorry for sin or ever acknowledge sin. If he can't even accept the way God wants to do it then he can't accept theta he needs it. If you can't accept that you cant repent.
Paul gives us indication that those who can't officially become Christian can still be saved if they are seeking God, truly seeking forgiveness.Look at what he says in Romans 6:
The atonement is a powerful statement of God's solidarity with us. Belief in its soteriological efficacy is an expression of our acceptance of that solidarity. I don't see how anyone could seek a relationship with God and reject that. The truth is our remarkable genius wants to reject God incompletely he wants to be left alone on his own and go his own way and not the pay a price for his hatred of the good. Angry little God haters don't want to see the beauty in it.
The genius misses the point. Jesus told that story he knew what he was telling, our little atheist genus doe not.The father did not tell the son 'yes come back and sin all you want,' The son did not come back saying "I won I will do whatever I want now," The son said "I screwed up I will do it your way, "'The father said welcome back, but clearly not come on back and sin all you want, The boy expressed repentance. God enters history as a man and suffers a cruel fate with criminals so we can see his willingness to come to our aid he spits in Christ's face and mocks the aid God
offers and uses God;s own mercy as the standard, The God hater doesn't want to see the beautify in Gods mercy.
God is not hung up with formalities. Forgiveness for sin is not that hide-bound. Why is this guy and most of the God hater club so hung up with atonement? Why is the cross such a stumbling bloc? I really wonder if this guy would really be sorry for sin or ever acknowledge sin. If he can't even accept the way God wants to do it then he can't accept theta he needs it. If you can't accept that you cant repent.
Paul gives us indication that those who can't officially become Christian can still be saved if they are seeking God, truly seeking forgiveness.Look at what he says in Romans 6:
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The atonement is a powerful statement of God's solidarity with us. Belief in its soteriological efficacy is an expression of our acceptance of that solidarity. I don't see how anyone could seek a relationship with God and reject that. The truth is our remarkable genius wants to reject God incompletely he wants to be left alone on his own and go his own way and not the pay a price for his hatred of the good. Angry little God haters don't want to see the beauty in it.
10. The entire story is incoherent. Let’s try to stumble through the drunken logic behind the Jesus story.God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God (whatever that means), so mankind could go to heaven instead.So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical. It’s like an abused wife thanking her abuser. We can just as logically curse God for consigning us to hell from birth.Perhaps I can be forgiven for being unimpressed by the crucifixion story.
Answer:
God did not create man to sin, He created using his own image as a counter balance to the inherent nature of corporeal life. God knew the scales would balance, it's up to each of us to make the decision. Bob's self pity depression talk about the inevitability of hell is just part of his blaming God for his own screw ups.
Our genius also has a flawed understanding of the Atonement. Stop thinking of it as a sacrifice and start thinking of it as a statement of solidarity. Please read my essay on the atonement.[3] It is also not necessary to thin of hell as eternal conscious torment,[4]
Our genius also has a flawed understanding of the Atonement. Stop thinking of it as a sacrifice and start thinking of it as a statement of solidarity. Please read my essay on the atonement.[3] It is also not necessary to thin of hell as eternal conscious torment,[4]
He really only has two arguments, he just words them differently to make t look like he has 10 objections:
(1) Jesus could not suffer enough.
(all based upon fallacy that atonement works by out suffering everyone)
Arguments 1-3, 6, 8.
(2) sin is God's BS hang up it's not really bad.
4, 5. 7,9
10 is just a re cap of the previous two arguments and further commentary based upon his fallacious assumptions.
NOTES
[1] Bob Seidensticker, "10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense, "Cross Examined, blog, (MARCH 15, 2013 )
ttps://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/10-reasons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/ (accessed March 1,2020)
NOTES
[1] Bob Seidensticker, "10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense, "Cross Examined, blog, (MARCH 15, 2013 )
ttps://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/10-reasons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/ (accessed March 1,2020)
(2011)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/was-suffering-mechinism-of-atonement.html (accessed March 1,2020)
[3]______________. "steriology:Atonement" Doxa, (2010)
http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/salvation_others1.html (accessed March 1,2020)
[4]______________. "why I don;t belkeve in Hell." Doxa *(2010)
http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/hell.html (accessed March 1,2020)
[4]______________. "why I don;t belkeve in Hell." Doxa *(2010)
http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/hell.html (accessed March 1,2020)
Comments
I think the blogger makes a good point. He does not just say it was no big deal, he goes on to say why, and to me those are valid points.
Joe: He fallaciously understands atonement to work by hierarchy of pain ,It's not redemption because it was more painful than any other death, It's more a mater of who died and why not how much it hurt.
So right off the bat you are conceding that the pain involved was not relevant. However, Christians often do point out Jesus suffering was an important aspect, so perhaps you should rail against them? They are giving atheists the wrong impression about Christianity, which in turn is leading to atheists believing as this guy does.
Joe: He speaks of "Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison," he's still working under the fallacious assumption that atonement works by out suffering everyone. Pain is not the mechanism of redemption.see my essay,
Okay, so how much Jesus suffered does not matter. But putting that aside, the guy is right that the pain Jesus felt pales into insignificance against the pain God causes in one person he consigns to hell - and there are billions of people he consigns to hell.
Joe: How does this genius figure he didn't die? Does he really mean he didn't stay dead? He assumes if he didn't stay dead it wasn't really a sacrifice?
Absolutely YES!
I would be happy to "sacrifice" my life, if I knew I would get it back in a couple of days. The point of a sacrifice is that you give up something for ever. It is like I am happy to give £10,000 to the homeless, as long as I know I will get it back in a couple of days. How generous am I?
[I am pretty sure he does not mean Jesus did not die at all]
Joe: In the final analysis,however,it doesn't matter what we think or what that child thinks but only what God does.If God says that Jesus death is proper basis for atonement even if he did raise, then it is,period,end of problem.
The issue is whether Christianity make sense, so in fact what we think is exactly the point.
Joe: Each individual is a free moral agent, each one of us chooses to sin/ It's part of our nature but our will is free we chose to give in to it. That is not an issue with the atonement or the cross but with the need for it. Sin nature is not guilt it's just propensity. The difference in sin nature and sin is like the difference in having musical talent and actually playing an instrument,
The guy's point is about us being sinful because of Adam's sin, which you do not address at all - possibly because you do not agree with that anyway?
Joe: God could blame Adam because he told him not to eat it he knew not to do that. That is not the same. Not knowing they were naked is not the same as knowing they had sinned. It's an extension of the issue. The difference in knowing the rule and knowing the experience of guilt. They had not experienced guilt but the did know the rule.
Adam and Eve were like toddlers (with respect to morality, unable to know right and wrong). Sure you tell them not to take cookies from the cookie jar, but they do not understand that that taking cookies is wrong. If your toddler subsequently steals cookies do you beat him up and throw him out on the street? That is what God did.
While this is the same as the opening paragraph, the opening paragraph was not part of the ten, so it is perfectly reasonable to now include in the list.
Joe: This argument is self defeating. Think about it. To dismiss this beautiful, loving,magnanimous,gracious gesture by the basis of all reality the essence of the good, and dismiss it with a cavalier "no big deal " tells me "hey my mind is that of a ten year old. Im not capable of any profound thoughts."
The guys point is that a sacrifice by a man with a sinful nature is far more impressive than a sacrifice by a man with a perfect nature. I see nothing in your response that addresses that.
Joe: God does forgive. Notice how he seems to be talking like God could just forgive people with requiring that they repent or be sorry for wrong,What would be the point of that? That's saying you are going to forgive even when they are not sorry and they intend to hurt you again. He wants amnesty not forgiveness. Forgiveness by definition rewires that one be sorry for doing wrong which means one accept having done wrong, He just wants carte blanch to do whatever he wants.
I think you have again missed his point. There is nothing about being sorry or repenting in his point. He is likening sin to a debt owed to God, and pointing out that either Jesus paid that debt for us all or we each pay the debt for our own sins. He is pointing out that God requires both. Jesus has to pay the debt and then you also have to pay the debt.
Joe: The genius misses the point. Jesus told that story he knew what he was telling, our little atheist genus doe not.The father did not tell the son 'yes come back and sin all you want,' The son did not come back saying "I won I will do whatever I want now," The son said "I screwed up I will do it your way, "'The father said welcome back, but clearly not come on back and sin all you want, The boy expressed repentance. God enters history as a man and suffers a cruel fate with criminals so we can see his willingness to come to our aid he spits in Christ's face and mocks the aid God offers and uses God;s own mercy as the standard, The God hater doesn't want to see the beautify in Gods mercy.
Interesting you say "suffers a cruel fate" when earlier you said "It's more a mater of who died and why not how much it hurt". Does the amount of pain matter or not?
Also interesting is that now the reason for Jesus' sacrifice is "so we can see his willingness to come to our aid" and not about forgiveness of sins.
Last discussion I points out that you have no coherent narrative for the passion, just a bunch of ad hoc explanations, each of which addressed one issue, but they were not consistent with each other. You are doing exactly the same here. You can present a bunch of responses to his points, but there is no single coherent theory. You just have a bunch of ad hoc responses, each seems plausible in isolation, but they are not consistent with each other.
Joe: God did not create man to sin, He created using his own image as a counter balance to the inherent nature of corporeal life. God knew the scales would balance, it's up to each of us to make the decision. Bob's self pity depression talk about the inevitability of hell is just part of his blaming God for his own screw ups.
The "inherent nature of corporeal life" is exactly what God decided it would be (or there is a higher power than God who decided it). Our sin nature is because God chose it to be that way.
Joe: Our genius also has a flawed understanding of the Atonement. Stop thinking of it as a sacrifice and start thinking of it as a statement of solidarity.
That is your view, but it is hardly mainstream Christianity.
I think the blogger makes a good point. He does not just say it was no big deal, he goes on to say why, and to me those are valid points.
His reasons are childish he never gives a valid reason they all invoke not trusting God.
Joe: He fallaciously understands atonement to work by hierarchy of pain ,It's not redemption because it was more painful than any other death, It's more a mater of who died and why not how much it hurt.
So right off the bat you are conceding that the pain involved was not relevant. However, Christians often do point out Jesus suffering was an important aspect, so perhaps you should rail against them? They are giving atheists the wrong impression about Christianity, which in turn is leading to atheists believing as this guy does.
I said it's not the mechanism that males the forgiveness. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant.I know it's hard to understand but those of us who know Jesus actually love him, Thinking about the pain he went through or us affects us,we want others to sense something of that,but of course you don't feel it because you don't know Jesus
Joe: He speaks of "Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison," he's still working under the fallacious assumption that atonement works by out suffering everyone. Pain is not the mechanism of redemption.see my essay,
Okay, so how much Jesus suffered does not matter. But putting that aside, the guy is right that the pain Jesus felt pales into insignificance against the pain God causes in one person he consigns to hell - and there are billions of people he consigns to hell.
Well again that's not the menisci that makes atonement. But there's a problem with your understanding. First I don't believe hell is eternal conscious torment so you need to read the essay I linked to I think it's fn 2. you are also forgetting that God loves all people so he suffers as much as they do if they are separated from him eternally.
Joe: How does this genius figure he didn't die? Does he really mean he didn't stay dead? He assumes if he didn't stay dead it wasn't really a sacrifice?
Absolutely YES!
Of course that is fallacious reasoning. You don't know how Gpd feels so you can't say he's not moved people's eternal fate.
I would be happy to "sacrifice" my life, if I knew I would get it back in a couple of days. The point of a sacrifice is that you give up something for ever. It is like I am happy to give £10,000 to the homeless, as long as I know I will get it back in a couple of days. How generous am I?
Since you are not the incorporate logos so you have no idea what he was giving up or how he felt about it. My point is it's not the level of pain that makes the forgiveness so using that as an answer to why the cross is unreliable is foolish,
[I am pretty sure he does not mean Jesus did not die at all]
I think so too but I was covering the bases
The issue is whether Christianity make sense, so in fact what we think is exactly the point.
No I don't think so. If you speak of a belief system "making sense" you have to be willing to understand it's inner logic, you can;t do that without considering God's love for all people.If you do that you can't callously assert that human fates does not evoke a sense of anguish in God.You can't ignore the cosmic proportions of the dilemma between human fate and the demand of righteousness.
Joe: Each individual is a free moral agent, each one of us chooses to sin/ It's part of our nature but our will is free we chose to give in to it. That is not an issue with the atonement or the cross but with the need for it. Sin nature is not guilt it's just propensity. The difference in sin nature and sin is like the difference in having musical talent and actually playing an instrument,
The guy's point is about us being sinful because of Adam's sin, which you do not address at all - possibly because you do not agree with that anyway?
I just said we inherit the propensity to sin, I really don't believe that we literally inherent sin mature from the first man's behavior.I think that's a metaphor the dilemma of corporeal existence.
Joe: God could blame Adam because he told him not to eat it he knew not to do that. That is not the same. Not knowing they were naked is not the same as knowing they had sinned. It's an extension of the issue. The difference in knowing the rule and knowing the experience of guilt. They had not experienced guilt but the did know the rule.
Adam and Eve were like toddlers (with respect to morality, unable to know right and wrong). Sure you tell them not to take cookies from the cookie jar, but they do not understand that that taking cookies is wrong. If your toddler subsequently steals cookies do you beat him up and throw him out on the street? That is what God did
fist I think that story is a moralistic myth. That is we are supposed to learn from it,It;s not a real historical event. So its not like that is the true origin of sink it's just a means of communicating a message. Secondly. its a metaphor so the understanding of it is what matters not literally Adam and Eve trying to cope.
While this is the same as the opening paragraph, the opening paragraph was not part of the ten, so it is perfectly reasonable to now include in the list.
true but he really has only has two arguments.
Joe: This argument is self defeating. Think about it. To dismiss this beautiful, loving,magnanimous,gracious gesture by the basis of all reality the essence of the good, and dismiss it with a cavalier "no big deal " tells me "hey my mind is that of a ten year old. Im not capable of any profound thoughts."
The guys point is that a sacrifice by a man with a sinful nature is far more impressive than a sacrifice by a man with a perfect nature. I see nothing in your response that addresses that.
(1)The atonement doesn't work by being impressive.
(2) It is hugely impressive that God would would care about us enough to do that for us, To spit in Christ's face being ungrateful and trying to pretend it's not "no big deal" is just stupid If a US sneaker sacrificed some trivial thing for you you would be impressed.
Joe: God does forgive. Notice how he seems to be talking like God could just forgive people with requiring that they repent or be sorry for wrong,What would be the point of that? That's saying you are going to forgive even when they are not sorry and they intend to hurt you again. He wants amnesty not forgiveness. Forgiveness by definition rewires that one be sorry for doing wrong which means one accept having done wrong, He just wants carte blanch to do whatever he wants.
I think you have again missed his point. There is nothing about being sorry or repenting in his point. He is likening sin to a debt owed to God, and pointing out that either Jesus paid that debt for us all or we each pay the debt for our own sins. He is pointing out that God requires both. Jesus has to pay the debt and then you also have to pay the debt.
The financial transaction model of the atonement is not good. It's an analogy then people literalize the analogy I think what that idea is designed to achieve is not as important as what it loses.The idea of a statement of solidarity is closer to what the Atonement does for us.BTW God requires that we commit our lives to him not that we atone for our own sins.
Joe: The genius misses the point. Jesus told that story he knew what he was telling, our little atheist genus doe not.The father did not tell the son 'yes come back and sin all you want,' The son did not come back saying "I won I will do whatever I want now," The son said "I screwed up I will do it your way, "'The father said welcome back, but clearly not come on back and sin all you want, The boy expressed repentance. God enters history as a man and suffers a cruel fate with criminals so we can see his willingness to come to our aid he spits in Christ's face and mocks the aid God offers and uses God;s own mercy as the standard, The God hater doesn't want to see the beautify in Gods mercy.
I did not say the cruel fate is the basis of Atonement. Jesus did suffer.That doesn't mean the suffering did the work but did suffer. Try to remember those of us who Know Jesus love him.
Also interesting is that now the reason for Jesus' sacrifice is "so we can see his willingness to come to our aid" and not about forgiveness of sins.
You are really grasping at straws, the atonement is complex.I didn't say the only reason for it to see his willingness but that is part o the solidarity model.
Last discussion I points out that you have no coherent narrative for the passion, just a bunch of ad hoc explanations, each of which addressed one issue, but they were not consistent with each other.
bull shit! I wasn't trying to write a systematic theology. If I wanted to take the time to write a paper on it it would all fit together and make sense,
You are doing exactly the same here. You can present a bunch of responses to his points, but there is no single coherent theory. You just have a bunch of ad hoc responses, each seems plausible in isolation, but they are not consistent with each other.
stop being obtuse.I'm not writing a theological treatise.I did footnote essays I've written that would shed light on my view of atonement of course you didn't read htem;had you done so it would fit together,
Joe: God did not create man to sin, He created using his own image as a counter balance to the inherent nature of corporeal life. God knew the scales would balance, it's up to each of us to make the decision. Bob's self pity depression talk about the inevitability of hell is just part of his blaming God for his own screw ups.
The "inherent nature of corporeal life" is exactly what God decided it would be (or there is a higher power than God who decided it). Our sin nature is because God chose it to be that way.
That is false. Your assertion that god could violate the basic nature of corporal life and still have corporeal creatures ix clearly false..
Joe: Our genius also has a flawed understanding of the Atonement. Stop thinking of it as a sacrifice and start thinking of it as a statement of solidarity.
That is your view, but it is hardly mainstream Christianity.
wrong. It;s called participatory model it goes back to the church fathers
3/02/2020 12:44:00 AM
It's also really badly written. Here are a couple of excerpts for your giggling pleasure:
"Imagine a terrorist attack; 9/11 for example. Would the experience of 9/11 be like the experience of a stroll in the park? Should we expect it to be?"
"The supernatural is about ontology, but it is also the power of God to vivify human nature and raise it to a higher level. These experiences do exactly what the supernatural is supposed to do. Since they are actually mystical experience itself, and that was the original conceit of the supernatural, they are literally the supernatural, no question about it. They are it."
It's funny that the only reference I find to that quote ("Imagine a terrorist attack; 9/11 for example. Would the experience of 9/11 be like the experience of a stroll in the park? Should we expect it to be?") is the boo review on Amazon probably you are the one who put it there.
Tell me what post I embarrassed you in? That's why you seek revenge. you are trying to smear my book because you are stupid and I showed you up.
As for the second one, "The supernatural is about ontology, but it is also the power of God to vivify human nature and raise it to a higher level."What's wroth with that sentence? Do you enough intelligence to disgusting between agreement with the concept and examination of the writing? i doubt it. You are clearly a very stupid person.
"These experiences do exactly what the supernatural is supposed to do. Since they are actually mystical experience itself, and that was the original conceit of the supernatural, they are literally the supernatural, no question about it. They are it."
That is a true statement and I documented that in the book I debut that you where the term "supernatural" comes from? I do. That fits with this statement. Come now coward stop hiding and come out and face me like an adult.
I have another book soon to come out, two more in works so your stupidity will not shut down the mighty Hinman empire.